>>556950 > Shia and Sunni? Quite a few, the most notable being that Shiites believe that Ali was the first caliph and his descendents are the rightful leaders of the Ummah. Whilst Sunnis believe the caliph should be elected (elected is used liberally here) and that Ali was the fourth caliph.
>Which is the legitimate form of Islam? No one knows, because there aren't any particularly compelling arguments for the legitimacy of Ali or Abu Bakr apart from the fact that Abu Bakr had the bigger army.
>>557026 This ignores all theological differences, though.
Shia believe there is still a living Imam watching over us all. Sunni do not. The actual difference is this: Did spiritual authority pass on with political authority, or did spiritual authority die with Muhammad?
Well, Abu Sufyan's son Muawiyah usurped the legitimate Caliphate's authority for his own personal gratification, and it all went downhill from there. Islam became nominal under many rulers, who fitted its teachings to their own desires.
Shi'a Ali translates to "Partisans of Ali", and it was solely a political position for hundreds of years rather than a sect with theological differences.
>>557026 Arabs at the time were tribal. It was the same generation that had literally just converted from paganism.
Shi'i are critical of what they see as Arab culture prevailing over the wishes of Muhammad, as it is said that Abu Bakr was elected while Ali was not present (he was preparing Muhammad's corpse for burial or something similar) and that Abu Bakr was chosen due to the Arab convention of automatically choosing the oldest candidate in an election.
Ali went along with it, though. He was a naturally quiet man who didn't want to cause trouble.
>>557056 not so much centralized authority as spiritual authority. the muslim ummah was both a wordly state as a spiritual community. For the sunni, the spiritual lay purely with muhammad and the quran, and the worldly lay with the caliph. For the shia, the two were inseperable. One might say its an early conflict between whether or not church and state must be divided or not.
>>557084 Islam isn't your plaything, you fool. The Quran warns against people like you.
9:97 - الْأَعْرَابُ أَشَدُّ كُفْرًا وَنِفَاقًا وَأَجْدَرُ أَلَّا يَعْلَمُوا حُدُودَ مَا أَنزَلَ اللَّـهُ عَلَىٰ رَسُولِهِ ۗ وَاللَّـهُ عَلِيمٌ حَكِيمٌ "The Arabs of the desert are the worst in Unbelief and hypocrisy, and most fitted to be in ignorance of the command which Allah hath sent down to His Messenger: But Allah is All-knowing, All-Wise."
49:14 - قَالَتِ الْأَعْرَابُ آمَنَّا ۖ قُل لَّمْ تُؤْمِنُوا وَلَـٰكِن قُولُوا أَسْلَمْنَا وَلَمَّا يَدْخُلِ الْإِيمَانُ فِي قُلُوبِكُمْ ۖ وَإِن تُطِيعُوا اللَّـهَ وَرَسُولَهُ لَا يَلِتْكُم مِّنْ أَعْمَالِكُمْ شَيْئًا ۚ إِنَّ اللَّـهَ غَفُورٌ رَّحِيمٌ "The desert Arabs say, "We believe." Say, "Ye have no faith; but ye (only)say, 'We have submitted our wills to Allah,' For not yet has Faith entered your hearts. But if ye obey Allah and His Messenger, He will not belittle aught of your deeds: for Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful."
You're a munafiq at best. e.g. the burqa is a bid'ah and has nothing to do with Islam.
>>557114 Kek, all Gulf Arabs are actually Bedouin scum, even the fucking Koran admits it. The only reason they are wealthy is because the Jews and their Eternal Anglo good goyim realized that they are equally as treacherous and conniving as they are; otherwise the Eternal Anglo would have occupied them and taken their oil without royalties.
>>557108 Islam doesn't need to be "fixed" or "reformed". In fact, the terrorist groups could be viewed as "reformers" at best by anyone well-read in Islamic thought.
Rather, the innovations and intentionally fraudulent interpretations that have been propagated must be removed from the faith; the forged hadith, the doctrine of taking hadith over the Quran, and the Wahhabi movement must be purged.
Wahhabism is pure, unadulterated crypto-Arab Paganism using Islam as a cover. Its methodology actually resembles the Evangelical churches and other fringe Christian elements. One could call it "Protestant Islam".
>>557146 >Wahhabism is pure, unadulterated crypto-Arab Paganism using Islam as a cover. Its methodology actually resembles the Evangelical churches and other fringe Christian elements. One could call it "Protestant Islam". As a orthodox fag, i agreee with you.
>>557143 >‘Abdullah ibn ‘Ata narrated this hadith from ‘Abdullah ibn Buraydah and he said in it, “And that you see deaf, dumb, blind, barefoot shepherds of sheep competing with each other in building as if the kings of people.” He said, “So the man [Jibril] stood up and left, and we asked, ‘Messenger of Allah, who are these you describe?” He answered, “They are the Arabs.” http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/commentators/fisk/robert-fiskrsquos-world-the-stakes-get-higher-as-arab-princes-try-to-outdo-each-other-1869549.html
>>557219 Muslim scholars have been questioning the reliability of hadith as a whole since the 11th century.
Based on the fact that they're hearsay, and the fact that plenty of them are literally "do x thing y times and recieve z extra blessings from Allah" and talking about things that directly conflict with verses of the Quran.
The Aisha marraige hadith in Bukhari is an infamous example of a forgery.
>tfw muslims take the hadith more seriously than the quran >tfw we fail Allah everyday by not rebelling against the Saudis and putting an end to their satanistic cult >tfw most muslims don't even understand Islam What have we done wrong fellow muslim brothers?
what if there is no god guys ? he was just a little bastard fellow ( in a very conservative society) with mental issues and seizure who go nuts after the death of his first wife ! It's just a prank bro , it's a prank !
>>557269 The destruction of the Caliphate in 1924 as an authoritative and orthodox figure and overall intentional subversion of Islam by the British, Americans, and French (amongst others) created a power vacuum which allowed the Saudis (not forgetting the material support & protection given to the Saudis in their subjugation of Arabia and propagation of Wahhabism.
The current situation is completely manufactured. God knows how long it will last, but it's destined to end.
>>557272 His wife was the first person he talked to after having his first vision. She didn't die for years into his prophecy.
"The zeal and virtue of Ali were never outstripped by any recent proselyte. He united the qualifications of a poet, a soldier, and a saint; his wisdom still breathes in a collection of moral and religious sayings; and every antagonist, in the combats of the tongue or of the sword, was subdued by his eloquence and valour. From the first hour of his mission to the last rites of his funeral, the apostle was never forsaken by a generous friend, whom he delighted to name his brother, his vicegerent, and the faithful Aaron of a second Moses." - Edward Gibbon, The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire
>>557346 Muhammad is considered a role model, Sunni Muslims keeps his tradition alive by imitation. We love him as a prophet more than we love our selves, just like a son loves his father or a boy loves his brother and tries to imitate him, this is no way definition of idolatary.
According to traditional Shi'a thought, the "failure" of the Ali'd movement was doomed from the start, not because of any flaw in the nature of Ali or The People of the House, but mainly due to the nature of the cosmos
One big difference between Sunni and Shi'a culturally speaking is that the Sunnis tended to view worldly success as a sign of divine favor. This is not to say that Sunnis didn't have any ascetic traditions, mind you, as the Sufis, who largely allowed themselves to move more towards the emerging Sunni orthodoxy, exemplify this fact. The thing is though, the political success of Sunni Islam was a source of great pride, even when the various Sunni empires began to collapse or economically decline. At the very least, Sunnis for many centuries could take some kind of pride in the fact that they were still on top of the world and this was evidence Allah had chosen Islam and Sunnism, even if the average Sunni was a peasant with little means. Much of the "shock" that they weren't on top and probably haven't been for a long time still hasn't worn off.
In contrast, the Shi'a understood themselves in almost opposite terms. Shi'ism wasn't proven true by it's worldly success but rather by the fact that it was persecuted, by it's "worldly failure" if you will. For Shi'a, the greatest proofs of Islam are found not in the worldly success of any single empire but rather in the wisdom and miracles of the saints and the sacrifices of the martyrs, particularly the martyrdom of Hussain. The Shi'a did not see Ali and Hussain's martyrdom as a case of God hating the Shi'a or as the result of any flaw in their character but more a case of the world as it is hating God, which is why of course the Mahdi needs to come and reform the world. Also, because the Imams lived in austerity and endured hardship, even Shi'ite kings felt a certain need to project a similar image of ascetic virtue and spartan vigor to their Shi'a subjects.
This is also why reform movements like Wahhabism and Salafism gained many converts among the Sunnis once it became clear that God was no longer favoring the Muslims with wordly success. The early Wahhabis, including the early Saudis were very rigid in their lifestyles, which earned the admiration of many Sunnis and made them pay attention when the Wahhabis claimed that the reason the infidels are overtaking the Muslim world is because of excess and moral decadence.
In the Shi'a world, the main problem for the different reformers was encouraging more active political involvement of the clergy as the monarchs and aristocrats embraced modern Western culture and secularism. The Shi'a reformers were trying to get Shi'a more involved in the world, when they had a habit of being like "we shouldn't get too involved in politics, we shouldn't get too involved in the world, we should focus on leading individual lives of purity and waiting for the Imam to come."
>>557928 >as the Sufis, who largely allowed themselves to move more towards the emerging Sunni orthodoxy, exemplify this fact Almost every major Sufi tariqa except for the Nashqbandi is traces its spiritual lineage to Ali. The Sufis started as a Shia movement.
Most Sufis ARE Sunni in aqidah (creed) and fiqh (law). While the Sufi orders trace themselves through Ali, this is only in terms of mystical knowledge (ma'rifa/irfan). Almost every traditional Sufi order today accepts the doctrine of the Four Righteous Caliphs and reads Sunni books by Sunni jurists and Sunni or Sunni leaning mystics. You'll find in fact that many Sufis do share the Sunni suspicions of the Shi'a, perhaps more so because the Shi'a in their structure and doctrines seem a lot like them, which results in their being persecuted by their fellow Sunnis. Most Sufis only hold Ali to be a spiritual leader, not a political or worldly one, and see the early caliphate along the lines of something close to a constitutional monarchy or like kingship(the caliphs)/papacy(Ali). The Shi'a however accept Ali as both the perfect political and perfect spiritual leader.
Also, among the Shi'a, the relationship between themselves and the Sufis became vexed. While Shi'a-Sufi orders are not non-existent in and outside of Iran, ever since the 17th century, the issue of Sufis and Sufism became problematic. Some Shi'a saw the Sufis as deviants or as closet Sunnis. In response, many Shi'a avoided formal Sufi orders of dervishes and embraced a more informal Sufism, which had always bled into Shi'a learning, under the general label of "Irfan" or "gnosticism". This avoided the controversial political label of being a "Sufi" which more and more became associated in the minds of some more zealous ulama with disobedience of the shariah or extreme (ghulat) beliefs. Some Shi'a clergy, not least famous Ayatollah Khomeini himself school fully embraced the identity of being "Sufis" but distinguished between the formal Sufi orders and the informal study and practice of "Sufism" or "irfan". The adoption by mainstream hawzas (clerical schools) among the Shi'a of gnostic and philosophical studies over the centuries also led to the decline of the formal tariqas among the Shi'a.
>>557928 >Much of the "shock" that they weren't on top and probably haven't been for a long time still hasn't worn off.
I've read that Napoleon's invasion of Egypt is one of the most important events in the history of the Islamic world. In Europe it's nothing more than a footnote of history, overlooked as trivial even by most of academics. For Islam is was a thorough shock - an infidel army arrived and smashed with ease all the armies thrown at it. The technical and organisational superiority of the French army was absolutely and the French withdrawn only after being defeated by another infidel army.
The whole brief war utterly smashed the Islamic world's sweet dream of being the pinnacle of civilization. It still has yet to redefine itself after that shock.
>>557976 When you're referring to the Shi'i, are you referring solely to the Twelvers or what? The only reason most Sufis could be seen as Sunni would be because Twelver ideology developed after many of the tariqat were founded. They could be easily seen as Shi'i in the traditional pre-Twelver sense.
They (the original Safavid dynasty) grew out of the Safaviyya tariqa, after all, so it's not surprising that modern Twelvers would acknowledge the link.
Could you tell me your sources, please? I'd like to expand my knowledge on the subject.
Yes, that is correct for the most part. Most Islamic historians and academics now accept that the Napoleonic invasion of Egypt caused three distinct though not necessarily separate reactions:
1. Mahdism-- This event and similar ones that followed were a sign of the coming apoacalypse. Muslims need to hurry and repent and prepare for the coming of Christ and the Mahdi. Groups like the Babi and Bahai come out of this
2. Fundamentalism-- These events are happening because we (the Muslims) haven't been following God's law, which has made us weak and disorganized. We need to return to the basic foundations of our faith and eliminate those religious soars and boils that have grown over it. Not just Wahhabi movements come out of this, but so too did some Sufi reactionary movements.
3. Secular Intellectualism-- If the West is superior because of its science and technology than we need to embrace the culture and science of the West wholesale and forget some or all of this religious keeping us in a primitive past. see Ataturk, Arab nationalism, Middle Eastern Marxism, etc. Such movements were mostly confined to the urban educated class. Most "communists" in the Islamic world weren't workers or peasants as much as people who could afford to study in Europe, where they became exposed to Marxist philosophy.
>>558040 That's BS. He claimed to be a Muslim while in Egypt in an attempt to gain local support. I believe nobody took that seriously. Just years later he reestablished the Catholic Church in France as a Christian emperor.
Most likely be was just indifferent to religion and used it for political gain. He privately talked quite disparagingly about all religions.
>>558068 >>558040 >It is by making myself Catholic that I brought peace to Brittany and Vendée. It is by making myself Italian that I won minds in Italy. It is by making myself a Moslem that I established myself in Egypt. If I governed a nation of Jews, I should reestablish the Temple of Solomon.
>>558014 >When you're referring to the Shi'i, are you referring solely to the Twelvers or what?
Twelvers and Ismailis. Zaydis' Shi'ism tends to be more of a political character without much mystical theology.
>They (the original Safavid dynasty) grew out of the Safaviyya tariqa, after all, so it's not surprising that modern Twelvers would acknowledge the link.
Shi'ism existed before the Safavid dynasty and it was under the Safavid dynasty that the wedding between the non-Sufi/anti-Sufi Shi'a ulama and Shi'a-Sufis found patronage, which eventually led to the synthesis of the various elements of rational Twelver kalam (theology), Sufi gnosis, and Persian/Greek philosophy found in "The School of Isfahan" associated with such figures as Shaykh Bahai, Mir Damad, Mulla Sadra and others whose teachings formed the basis of most of Twelver metaphysics from then on.
The Ismailis always identified themselves as "dervishes" or "Sufis" but were exclusivists in that they didn't really accept members of other tariqa and preferred to infiltrate other non-Shi'a or non-Ismaili tariqa from within by sending their devout missionaries and assassins to pose as dervishes of other Sufi orders
The most famous doctors of Twelver Shi'a religion in the medieval era: Sheikh al-Mufid (d.1022), Sheikh al-Tusi (d. 1067), Sheikh as-Saduq (d. 991), etc. didn't identify as "Sufis" and whenever they spoke about it, they understood it as something different from their Shi'ism (see Mufid), although they didn't deny the reality of gnosis/irfan, they did not see irfan and Sufism as necessarily the same. The Sufis claimed esoteric knowledge and initiation from the Imams, but many Shi'a believed them to be false claimants. Similarly, the Shi'a "ghulat" or "extremists" who were seen as going too far in elevating the status of the Imams, even to the point of claiming they were God or prophets or greater than Muhammad, also claimed to be initiates of esoteric knowledge from the Imams (though many of them shared the dislike of Sufis too for the reasons they challenged ghulat claims to authority) and that their excommunication and condemnation by the Imams was merely taqiyya. Exceptions exist like Haydar Amuli (d. 1385) who attempted to show "Sufism" and "Shi'ism" as the same thing, which set the stage for later developments when the ascent of a powerful Shi'a dynasty in Iran saw the different competing elements of Shi'ism living in one place from rational minded Twelver ulama in the tradition of Mufid, Saduq and others, the followers of a fairly mainstream Sufi-Shi'ism like that of Amuli, radical Sufi sects like those among the Qizilbash tribal elements that supported the Safavids rise to power, historically Sunni Sufi orders recently converted to Shi'ism like the Nimatullahi who wanted to avoid persecution or found the Safavid propaganda convincing, Zaydi and Ismaili communities, and (formerly Sunni) students of Persian-Islamic philosophy in the line of Suhrawardi and Ibn Sina who were found mainly among the Persian speaking aristocracy
All of these combined in creative ways during the Safavid period to give rise to what is now "orthodox" Twelverism
>>558301 As to the term "Sufi", the problem for most Shi'a is not the association of Sufi with a follower of irfan, but the issue that the term is of more recent origin than the term Shi'a and the exact meaning and origin of the term is a subject of debate. Even many Sufis themselves can't agree on what the actual origin of the name "Sufi" is. Some believe it is derived from the term "tasawwuf" which is a spiritual concept in Sufism. Some believe it comes from the word for wool, and is a reference to the wool garments Sufi dervishes were known to wear. Still other Sufis believe the term comes from "Ahle Suffe" which means "People of the Platform" the "platform here being a reference to the platform of the first mosque in Medina during Muhammad's lifetime. All of these different definitions have been put forward by followers and scholars Sufism to explain the origin of the term, but the term "Sufi" or "Sufiyya" doesn't come into much popular use til the 9th or 10th century
With the term "Shi'at 'Ali", this is a no brainer. It refers to those who considered themselves true followers of Ali and the first use of the identification can be traced to Muhammad himself. No orthodox Sunni or Shi'a disputes this at all. Sunnis often claim THEY are the true "Shi'at Ali" against the Shi'a claims to be so. Abu Hanifa (d. 772), the founder of the Hanafi madhab, one of the four recognized schools of law in Sunni Islam, was also a student of the 6th Shi'i Imam, Ja'far as-Sadiq and was not opposed to the term "Shi'a" itself. But scholars like Abu Hanifa differentiated between Shi'a who were in his mind believers (Sunnis) and who were "rafidah" or "rejectors". Likewise, the term "Sunni" comes from "Ahlul Sunnah" but Shi'a often say "No, we are the true Ahlul Sunnah" So it goes both ways. The term "Shi'a" may be older than either "Sufi" or "Sunni" but each of these three groups can easily claim the other two terms as adequate descriptions of themselves which can create confusion
Early Islamic sectarian identities are not easy to define. Scholars accepted by the Sunnis and Shi'a today from the past don't always fit neatly along clear sectarian battle lines. It becomes hard to figure out in some cases where the early Islamic figures fit, especially with regards to the early mystics, who have been claimed/rejected by both Shi'a and Sunni alike. The cult surrounding the Shi'a Imams made things more confusing as different individuals surrounded the Imams from Ali and Muhammad's family and claimed to be the rightful representatives and battled with one another for closeness to them. These groups were mixing together during and after the times of the Shi'a Imams and all laid claim to being the spiritual descendants of the students of the Imams' schools. Especially after the 8th-11th (Twelver) Imams' death, it becomes confusing as the students of their schools dispersed and mixed and matched with one another that it becomes hard to pinpoint where each individual scholar falls. Some early Twelvers found themselves more in affinity with the Mutazilites, while others did identify themselves with the Sufi mystics or even with some of the ghulat. Some Shi'a accepted gnostic beliefs but rejected the term "Sufi" as a reference to deviant practices and doctrines. Some Sunnis condemned the "rafidah" as pretenders but nonetheless selectively narrated many of the rafidah's own hadiths from the Imams to support their own personal belief. Sometimes Shi'a students studied under Sunni teachers.
tl;dr it's all more complicated than you think. The much clearer battle lines between Shi'a and Sunni and Sufi we're familiar with today are probably only 600 years old and even today there still exists debate and confusion regarding early figures, especially the mystics.
Does someone know enough about the subject to explain why were the Fatimids unable to build a shiite Egypt (or north africa) but the Safavids were able to build a shiite Iran?
The destruction of the Fatimids by the Ayyubids cannot be the reason since Fatimids ruled for more than 200 years, more or less the same than the Safavids. Did the Fatimids just not care about proselytism or was there some important difference between Twelvers and Ismailis that made the former more attractive? Or was it Iran that was more receptive to the doctrine change than Egypt? If so (whatever is the awnser) why?
>>557114 On 9:97, when they say "most fitted to be in ignorance, the Arabic literally says: "most fitted in that they do not understand the boundaries (understand what delineates) of what was brought down by the prophet "
I believe (I'm no expert), in the context of the wider text, it refers to the ancient Arabs who would personalize God, ask for intercession, things like that. Mohammad's revelations curbs the extent to which the Arabs practiced magic, charms, and such things, it limits them. Some Arabs didn't follow those limits because they didn't understand why they were there, since they followed the excesses as tradition.
>>559139 Personally, I see the passages mentioned as a wider statement as well. Arabs are depicted in these passages as tribal in cohesiveness (like he said) and stubborn in superstition. Notice that for each of the two passages, the objection is mentioned, then immediately followed by a general "God is all-soandso ". IMO, this means that holders of power (or of survival for the head of a tribe in the Arabs sake) are stubborn to change in mindset and usually slow to true submission to a higher power due to their status, causing calcification in society. Arabs at that time seem especially like that. However, with those statements of the positive aspects of a higher power, this implies that societies like the ones described are not totally fucked, if they submit to God. The Quran thus acknowledges a gradual but true change of heart as valid, to what I can conclude. Today's Arabs are the same way. It's more a message than a condemnation.
>>559330 Because of all the propaganda in the media that's designed to imply that 90%+ of Muslims are subhuman terrorists.
>>559346 I'm a Muslim. We're told to use our rational faculty in all aspects. Swallowing the trash written in many hadith because they're "sahih" and dismissing rational hadith because they're "mawdu" is ignorant and superstitious.
Quranists are too extreme in their position.
>>559360 I don't like ibn Taymiyyah very much either.
>god emperor is turkic from anatolia >mehdi is supposed to come from khorosan, likely turkic >both are batiniyya characters >chracteristics of both fit into the image of saviour in batini shia islam (like Alevi/Hurufi) h-hold up!
>>556836 Moreso and quicker. Ali was a more than capable military leader and humble enough to know his own weaknesses and to listen to those with good ideas serving under him. As a personality he was pious and even most of those opposed to him respected him, and he wasn't a racist that thought non-Arabs shouldn't have power in the Muslim state and, of course, shouldn't be Muslims. Ali's family would have seen the gains of the Abbasids, but a more unified and militarily powerful version, from the Umayyad period on.
>>559596 They hold the position that all hadith are forgeries/conjecture and therefore should not be seen as genuine additions to practicing Islam.
I hold the position that the vast majority are as above, and that explicitly cultural aspects of the religion should be rightfully seen as merely cultural. e.g. the burqa.
Sheikh Imran Hosein is a scholar that shares my view, and he is by not a Quranist. I'm somewhat partial to their views, but Rashid Khalifa's cult the "Submitters" exceeds the bounds that Islam has set as essential to being legitimate Muslims.
>>559330 >Why the west always confuse sunnism with wahhabism.
Because Saudi Arabia is seen as a center and something of a mouthpiece of Sunnism. People in the West are accustomed to the idea that a mainstream church has a "head" that is an authoritative voice. Pope, Patriarch of Constantinople, Archbishop of Canterbury, Lutheran councils in each country etc. You get the idea. Those who disagree with them are fringe movements.
And since the Pope sits in Rome, the guys that sit in Mecca must be those who run Sunni Islam, right?
>>559448 >Because of all the propaganda in the media that's designed to imply that 90%+ of Muslims are subhuman terrorists.
There isn't any propaganda to speak of, unless you count sensationalism in tabloid press. There's however s persistent problems of integrating Muslims. Muslims, unlike almost every other minorities, by large look impervious to the assimilating force of modern Western society. Thus, to many people the terrorists are just an extreme end of a continuous spectrum of behavior exhibited by Muslims living in the West. Muslims are also handicapped by the lack of their own "pope" or "archbishop" who could be seen as a rallying figure and moderating voice.
>>558322 As a native Persian speaker some of these books are great but you really won't understand the meaning behind the works of Hafez, Rumi, and I even see some of Khomeini's poetry on that list too (really good stuff tbqhf[to be quite honest familia]), without being able to read and understand it in Farsi. The meaning just isn't there, the language will sound flowery and over-romantic but thats not what is being conveyed. All Iranians speak like that and it always makes me lol when white americans say "oh i love rumi the language he uses is so romantic!". nigger please thats just how we talk.
>>557976 >Also, among the Shi'a, the relationship between themselves and the Sufis became vexed. The reasons for that are two-fold. First, you have the fact that the Safavid dynasty started out as a Shi'a Sufi tariqa. The later Safavid rulers were initially Safaviyya sheikhs, and their fanatical Qizilbashi soldiers were also their sufi disciples. The movement was massively revolutionary and seditious, which was good when you were fighting a guerilla against the Ottomans. But when Safavids became a ruling dynasty, they had to purge their own powerbase which became too dangerous. That's just how it always is in history, see Hitler and the SA and a million other examples.
The second reason is that the imams are supposed to be infallible, possess a light of God, divine wisdom etc, etc. This is in contrast with the idea that Sufi sheikhs have the same properties and that it is possible to attain them for anyone who studies hard. It's quite hard to reconcile those two ideas.
>>560213 They don't contradict ANYTHING in the Quran, be it by core message or otherwise. They aren't obviously superstitious in nature, being remnants of the vanquished pagan faith systems. Their predictions have come to pass against the odds.
If it does not contradict the Quran, but does not augment it, treat it as dubious.
Nah, I'm actually a son of an Egyptian immigrant. He's Muslim in name only, and I've grown up to basically be an atheist who wants to believe in something but can't bring himself to. Quranist beliefs have always appealed to me, and yours do as well. Just wanted to see how you justified them.
>>560647 >Quranist beliefs have always appealed to me, and yours do as well. Just wanted to see how you justified them. And how have I done?
The view of hadith lovers that the hadith are required for understanding the Quran is obviously false if viewed within the ideology of Islam. It relegates the Quran to being an incomplete book rather than the claimed, unadulterated Word of God. In a sense it implies that it was composed by Muhammad, and that emulating his (rather mundane) personal habits is the goal of being a Muslim rather than spiritual and material liberation from tyranny in all its manifestations.
I'd recommend you read the Quran with an open mind if you haven't already. It opened up my heart considerably.
What was supposedly a purge of the Qizilbash was in fact more of a civil war among the Qizilbash themselves as some tribes became alienated from the Shah and the void was filled ghulam corps pulled from the Armenians and Georgians. Many Qizilbash tribes still remained in high favor with the royal court well into the dynasty's lifetime and while some elements of the Qizilbash moved towards more radical Sufism, such as the Nuqtavi movement, many other Qizilbash were more receptive to the rational and legalistic Shi'ism coming from the Arab ulema who migrated to the empire, just as some of the Arab ulama themselves saw fit to incorporate Sufi elements into their teaching to ease that transition.
Also, the Qajar dynasty came from one of the most respected and powerful of the Qizilbash tribes, so the Qizilbash were certainly not purged totally.
Also, while the Imams are hailed as the greatest of God's creation (after Muhammad) and pure and infallible, Shi'a have many more saints and holy icons. You have Zaynab bint Ali, Shahrbanu, Salman al-Farsi, Abu Dhar al-Ghaffari, Abbas ibn Ali, Abu Talib, the list can go on. All these figures are regarded by Shi'a as having intercessory and exemplary roles to play. Also, as I mentioned before, there were plenty of early Sufi figures who found acceptance among the Shi'a, even those who don't like "Sufis".
Really, the conflict between the Safavids and the other Sufis was mainly due to conceptions of Sufi authority. Because the Safavids rose to power as Sufi sheikhs, this made most other Sufi orders, unless they recognized the Shah's supreme secular authority, potential rivals. Many Sufi Orders only accept their sheikhs as THE sheikhs and speaking from personal experience, when people who pledge loyalty to a sheikh want to leave the order or join another, it's very hard to do so unless your sheikh is a fairly liberal dude because the sheikhs often claim a certain ownership of their followers.
Many problems arise from this approach to the scripture though. For one thing, it breaks the relationship between the Qur'an and history. How does one apply the Qur'an to their life without exemplary figures who embody the spirit and principles of its teachings? And how does one identify and assemble a life of these figures who exemplify the Qur'an's principles without the hadith? You also have a problem of the fact that many parts of the Qu'ran, especially in the area of law, require one to know the document's particular contexts and this is usually known by way of the hadith. There's also the fact that Qur'an even testifies to the presence of inner (batin) and outer (zahir) meanings to its verses, the hidden layers of meaning not being readily apparent to the average believer who doesn't have the knowledge or intuition to understand them.
If the problem is that hadith collections are elevated too highly over the Qur'an, there's responses to this. One is that this is mostly a Sunni phenomenon. Generally speaking, the main four Shi'a collections of hadith are regarded as including traditions of different levels of authenticity, but none of them are regarded as completely "sahih" like Muslim or Bukhari by Sunnis, and that position is in fact somewhat new in the Sunni world and was probably a response to the Shi'a analytical approaches to the hadith where each individual hadith had to be authenticated since Shi'a did not accept all the Companions of Muhammad to be rightly guided like Sunnis, nor do they accept all their hadith scholars to necessarily be infallible in their judgment. This is probably why Quran Aloners are mostly coming from the Sunni community, because Shi'a as a rule never take any hadith for granted and will admit that many of their oldest hadith collections are only like 50-60% sahih and each Shi'ite cleric publishes their own collections of what hadith they feel are the most authentic out of these principal sources.
>>561251 You put forward some very good points, though I honestly didn't have those samples of hadith in mind. My complaints in that regard were moreso the elevation of particular mundane, repetitive acts Muhammad (like all humans) had to do on a daily basis than emulating his/the Sahabas' characters.
Are you of any particular denomination yourself? Have you formally studied Islamic Sciences? Are you the poster I was replying to?
I came to most of my opinions independently, you see, and your understanding seems to be far more fleshed out and informed than mine. If I'm honest, I don't know much about Shi'i hadith or fiqh at all, so consciously I was bashing on the same trends you noticed in Ahl-al-Sunnah/Hadith.
The one with two alefs and that are in these verses refer to the bedouin desert dwellers of the Arabian Peninsula and the other one which is common today to Arabs in general which is what Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم and many of his companions were. Those desert Arabs are mostly gone anyways, living in cities and very different.
>>561351 Persian learner here My teacher told me that every Iranian thinks they're the embodiment of persianness and think try to teach Persian online whilst sucking at it. Apparently, "easy persian" is not a bad website, though.
That's another theory. But the problem is that when the term "philosophy" borrowed from Greek into Arabic, it became "falsafa". This is why many Sufis like al-Ghazali opposed philosophy because the connation was that of Greek metaphysics. In response, the Arab and Persian philosophers opted instead for "hikmat" to describe their own "falsafa". Hikmat being the word for "wisdom" in Arabic. So philosophers eventually settled on "al-hikmat al-ilahiyyah" or "wisdom of God" or theosophy which included the Greco-Arabic metaphysics, Sufi mysticism, as well as argumentative theology or kalam. When one examines the Sufis who opposed philosophy like al-Ghazali, one also notices that he uses the term "falsafa" in the context of Greek ideas imported into Islam (from his point of view),.There's no evidence to suggest that "Sufi" has any etymological origins in the Greek "sophia" and most Sufis who didn't identify as philosophers saw tasawwuf and falsafa as different things.
A good example is the "triad" of Ibn Sina, al-Ghazali and Ibn Rushd. Ibn Sina's rational scheme permitted much more room for mystical experience, similar in many ways to the Neoplatonic system which synthesized Greco-Roman mysticism, mostly informed by Platonic ideals, and Aristotelian empiricism. al-Ghazali tended more towards the position that all this futile attempts by humans to use Aristotelian logic and Platonic rational-mysticism were pointless and only the direct mystical experiences of the Sufis carried any weight in understanding the invisible world though he used rational arguments to try to tear down the systems of the philosophers. While Ibn Rushd was a more strict Aristotelian whose rationalism as opposed to mysticism influenced Christian Europe more than it influenced later Islamic thought which either followed Ghazali (in the Sunni world) or Ibn Sina (the Persian Shi'a world),
Fusha speaker here. Even though it doesn't do well in teaching contemporary Persian, I find reading Khayyam's Rubiyat with an English companion (not the classic Fitzgerald translation) is enjoyable because there is such a sublime mix of Arabic loanwords and basic Persian words; for straight enjoyment, download the Gulistan of Sa'di, which has many Persian and English versions for download, and makes many concepts clear once you analyze the grammar. It's prose, and has many Arabic loanwords as well... for analyzing grammar, I suggest John Mace's "Persian Grammar for Reference and Revision" for basic, contemporary understanding. For an advanced understanding of the grammar and use of vocabulary (mostly of older Persian, from the 18th century), find Sir William Jones' Higher Persian Grammar, which is floating somewhere on the Internet Archive.
كم وقتا التي تتعلم الفصحى، يا رفيقي؟ قد بدأت منذ ثلاثة اعوام. عند اين؟
>>562825 Shi'a would be catholicism, since their main argument is "my dude was our founder's closest guy, that managed the community for him, so he and his descendants are supposed to rule the religion for him" >>562729 The Mosque of Light is super awesome.
>>563492 But you should imitate Jesus, not marry. Because Jesus is mediator between man and way to god. If you consider Jesus as God and then putting his figurine in the place of worship then it is defined as idolatary in accordance with both Abrahamic teachings and general philosophy
يا الله، ممكن لارغب فقط لفرصة السافر الي اي دولة في الشرق الاوسط
هل انت مسلم اصلا؟
حاليا ادرس القران بالعربية مع مترجما انجلزيا. انا مسيحي و اريد انتمى كنيسة كاثهليكية ام ارثوذكسية، خاصة من اصل شرقي
My understanding of the rules is OK, but I have not put them all into practice yet. I have found a teacher too. I would say it's easier to find a teacher at a college or online. You might want to look into interpals (look it up on google). There might (most likely will be) be someone on there that's willing to be your pen pal and teach you Farsi in exchange for knowledge of Arabic or whatever else you know. I know some of them Skype.
>>556950 It started from a simple dispute over who is the rightful heir to Muhammed but since they split the 2 branches have formed numerous differences. In short the Shia believe that only stuff written down directly from Muhamad is the Rightful Word of God(tm) while the Sunni add a bunch of later works into their teachings. So the Shia are basically more ascetic and by the book while the Sunni also follow a lot of traditions and practices that were not outlined by Mohammed but were still integrated into Sunni religion.
صح، لست مسلما الان. اشعر ان محمد ليس ختم النبويين حتى ديوانه محفزا، بحضرة الهية ام لا. عند حضور وقت بحث طريقتي فسأعثر معظما على مذاهب التصوف لتعليم الاسلام. اما المسيحي فافضل الطراز الشرقي بسبب تاريخه و تركيزه على اقبال الابن من اجل باطن و طقسه الجميل السامي و تمسكه الى صفات القديسين و تطبيقه الايقونات و حبه للعذراء مريم
I was raised as a Protestant. While I respect the form of expression they use and the simplicity of their service, I feel the need for at least some decorum, and out of experience I have seen the downfall of a system that adheres to sola scriptura, vague doctrine, and weak fellowship among the congregation. As I told you, Sufism is very attractive to me (hence part of my interest in Farsi). I feel the need to sanctify the elements of my approach to God. I fear adhering completely to Catholicism due to the primacy of only one Pope and exclusion of other communions; I will look more into Orthodoxy before I judge. I don't want to be the type that commits to multiple religions in a short amount of time. I love Arabic because of the sublimity of its wording, idk. I am a perspective linguist, so I will branch out more as time goes on. I've drawn up a plan lol.
What pushed you into Islam? (especially, what convinced you that Mohammad is the last prophet?)
Well I was born into a loosely catholic family and I was always looking at religions. I always had a problem with the idea of Jesus being God, the trinity and the crucifixion and passion were things I never really thought about or connected with. Now I understand how central they are to Christianity but at the time, I was Christian without those ideas being essentially then a Muslim without Muhammad.
I met some Muslims in middle and high school, they were nice and I had a lot of respect for Islam but I eventually became Bahai just because it appealed to me as kind of hipster-ish and new agey but I really didn't connect with it and for two years I was Bahai but I knew no Bahais and didn't do anything Bahai. I started near the end going to a Bahai center and I came across the last sermon of Muhammad. The former made me realize that there is no substance to the Bahai faith and the latter that it didn't make any sense to believe in Muhammad and another prophet after him at the same time.
بسبب ذلك تعجبت عندما قلت أنك لا تظن أن محمدا خاتم الأنبياء
هل تعتقد أنه ما قال أنه الآخر أو تشك فيه
I mean he definitely said it in hadith and the last sermon especially is very explicit, I guess some like the Quranists might say that خاتم means something else but I honestly see that as very weak.
For a while I just believed in God as I did for a while between Christianity and the Bahai faith. Then I kind of just became Muslim. It was during Ramadan and I had been dating this Muslim girl, أستغفر الله العظيم, we had broken up a little before and I was trying fasting. Nothing in particular convinced me, it just seem like the last thing.
اليقين came with time as I practiced and I am reminded of the verse of the Quran.
فسبح بحمد ربك وكن من الساجدين واعبد ربك حتى يأتيك اليقين
But the longer I am Muslim the more I appreciate Christianity honestly. I listen to Catholic talk radio a lot and enjoy it. It has substance in a way the Bahai faith didn't but I am so not in agreemwnt with what they think of God and the trinity amd Jesus عليه الصلاة والسلام.
What is the liguistic plan? Other than English and Arabic, I know Spanish and can read French. I have my own plan. I am going to self study German and Italian and I will work slowly by myself on Latin, ancient Greek and Hebrew in that order. If I find a teacher I will learn Farsi, Urdu, and Hindi in that order. And of course إن شاء الله
I've already started German and Latin. Just in the begining though.
Napoleon's invasion made it increasingly obvious they were becoming weak. Before that, it was a little easier to deny it. After Napoleon is when you start to see a much heavier "reaction" to the increasing power of the West.
>>556939 >Aren't Shia practically a non-missionary branch of Islam?
Not quite, among the Shi'a you have both an affirmation of free will but also a belief that only a minority of people will believe. But historically, this didn't prevent the Shi'a from being extremely missionary in their own way. If anything, Sunnis were less missionary because unlike their Shi'a counterparts, they denied the reality of free will and affirmed stronger predestination doctrines. Unbelievers were unbelievers because God willed them to be so. This is not to say that Sunnism didn't put effort into trying to convert others, just as Calvin's ideas on predestination didn't prevent Reformed Christians from becoming missionaries. But the Shi'a seem to have been more intense in their efforts to try to convert populations to Islam. The difference is they relied more on debate and clandestine forms of conversion, whereas the Sunnis, being the politically dominant relied mostly on the gains from jihad. For Sunnis, it was enough that the Muslims were politically dominant. If the unbelievers beneath them refused to believe, it didn't really matter as long as they payed their jizya. Shi'a carried out extensive missionary efforts to the frontier parts of the Islamic world or by inserting themselves into the Sunni political and religious structure, through which they attempted to convert Sunnis to Shi'ism from within.
For example, Ismaili da'i's (literally missionaries) would often disguise themselves as Sufi dervishes and hang around the mosques and ask questions of the congregants looking for those who might be receptive to their religion. We also know that the reason Shi'ism of all branches was found often on the frontiers of Dar'ul Islam was because these were furthest away from centers of Sunni power where there were still plenty of non-Muslims between the non-Muslim and muslim territories to convert. The conversion of nobles was also important as nobles could protect Shi'a.
The core of Islamic world hasn't seen infidel troops for centuries. Ottomans were wavering, but still powerful and never actually liked by the rest of Muslims. Other than that, Islam continued its advance in other directions - like Africa or Central Asia. Do yes, they could pretty much think that they are undefeated.
I don't take those verses literally. I think it's more the case that Allah prolongs their life in such a way as to keep them in disbelief. Allah knows what's in our hearts, but it's ultimately up to us to try to change it.
Allah merely allows them to deviate further. We are explicitly told that we are given free will, Allah will not interfere in that as per His agreement.
The truth of the matter is that conceptions of how religion is transferred in Islam are different from the modern view. Much like how if you were baptized Christian, as far as the Catholic Church was concerned, you were Christian whether you said so, in Muslim cultures, besides the converts, religion was transferred from the father, just like how in Judaism, you're Jewish whether you like it or not if your mother was Jewish as far as many orthodox Jews are concerned
When a Muslim converted to Christianity or Judaism in the past, when these took place where the Muslim had sufficient state power, the Muslim jurists still did try to make concessions to these converts (because many jurists didn't want to kill people who weren't necessarily a threat to public order and constituted only an inconsequential minority anyway) by still legally considering them Muslims by virtue of parentage. So, if you were a Muslim who became a Coptic Christian in Egypt, you wouldn't necessarily be put to death if you just agreed to legally be considered Muslim even if for all intents and purposes you were openly Christian with your friends and neighbors as long as people could say "oh, he's just insane, leave him alone to his church" or something like that
How this was rationally understood in light of the doctrine of predestination which eventually overtook the Sunni Muslim world isn't easy. It was really the point of enforcing law and encouraging good actions and faith that was seen by the opponents of absolute predestination such as the Mutazilites and the Shi'a to be among the greatest logical flaws of the doctrine since the divine law was centered around the pretense that men had at least some agency to act on their own and the basis for punishing anyone for any action hangs on whether they can be proven to have done so intentionally in their right and sane state of mind. Predestination kind of destroys the entire principle of the law its followers are attempting to enforce.
In short, Predestination was NOT a doctrine that was founded on "rational principles" so much as much as a logical surface reading of the Qur'anic texts. The Qur'an says God is omnipotent, he has power over all things, he knows everything that will happen, and that's it, one doesn't ask anymore questions on the issue. The Predestination position was fairly notorious for tolerating very contradictory notions. Functionally, Sunnis operated on the presumption that there was free will and enforced law like human beings had free will. But on the theological level, their beliefs would appear to be antithetical to this. And they were content with that so long as it didn't present any serious problems. It was when of course Muslims no longer seemed to be favored by God that suddenly now the doctrine became a much more serious problem.
I'm not trying to use the term Wahhabi as an insult here. There's a lot of what might be called more moderate Wahhabis active in the United States and Canada who are fairly well educated and rational in debate, but from what I know of Shabir he does ascribe to Wahhabism. Even if I think the ideology is retarded, I still think there are plenty of people who follow it who aren't completely insane
The thing is about Wahhabis though is that they don't ever use the word "Wahhabi" to describe themselves. They'll usually call themselves "just Muslims" or "Ahlul Sunnah" cause they don't like being called Wahhabi as it implies they're somehow a different "sect" and of course the Qur'an says don't divide into "sects"
>>558018 >Most "communists" in the Islamic world weren't workers or peasants as much as people who could afford to study in Europe, where they became exposed to Marxist philosophy. How does this explain the large Communist population of Afghanistan, or even the PFLP active today which has no access to European education?
>>571796 I effectively was but to my mind, that is about almost as silly as being a Trinitarian Muslim. Of course, Islam is more explicit and I don't think the trinity can be justified from Jesus' عليه السلام words reported in the gospels anyways.
Besides I still had a problem with the idea of requiring a human sacrifice to forgive people. Even before Islam, I disliked Paul and there really are not many Unitarian Christians. Besides I am pretty convinced and attached to Islam now الحمد لله
>>572108 I really like this guy. Very knowledgeable and presentable. He is not an embarrassment as some other scholars are whenever they deal with people of other faiths and he usually crushes his opponent in debates.
لقد حذر النبي - صلى الله عليه وسلم - من الكذّابين الذين يأتون فيدعوا النبوة ، وذلك في الحديث الذي يرويه ثوبان رضي لله عنه أن رسول الله - صلى الله عليه وسلم - قال ( سيكون في أمتي كذابون ثلاثون ، كلهم يزعم أنه نبي ، و أنا خاتم النبيين ، لا نبي بعدي ، و لا تزال طائفة من أمتي على الحق ظاهرين ، لا يضرهم من خالفهم ، حتى يأتي أمر الله ) ، رواه مسلم.
No because Ali proved himselfd to be an incable leader during his reign as calpih. Umar Ibn Khattab was main force in Islamic expansion, his political mastery and powerful reign marks him as one of histories finest rulers.
He was basically the Arabian Julius Caesar with the personality of Cato the younger.
It's not even a competion. Persians are racially superior to arabs in evrything. NOt only have they been signifigant to world history and culture but they were literally the backbone to the islmaic golden age, hell to even islam istelf.
Who was the greatest scholars who collected the hadiths that are literally the backbone to sunni islam? Persians. (Bukhari and Muslim)
Who was the greatest Islamic theologian? Persian. (Al-Ghazali)
>>576084 You guys are acting like two 18th century Orientalists.
As if you can act like all of Islam is being arabized or that there is some Platonic form of Arabness and it is very tribal inherently or that these things happen across space and time so that seventh century Arab mentality tainted Islam permanently so much so that it continues to modern times unbroken and extends from Somalia to Indonesia to western Islamic communities that are obviously only affected by Islam and Arabness with capital letters and not history, circumstances, economics, politics, whims or anything else.
>>576079 >He was basically the Arabian Julius Caesar with the personality of Cato the younger.
I don't know if this statement is true but it is fun. And the beautiful is the true insofar that it is beautiful.
>As if you can act like all of Islam is being arabized or that there is some Platonic form of Arabness and it is very tribal inherently or that these things happen across space and time so that seventh century Arab mentality tainted Islam permanently so much so that it continues to modern times
That is correct. Islam brings with it a arabization of sorts. Look no further than the Levant and north Africa, arabization has reduced several pre-existing nations and varied ethnic groups into one pan-ethnic identity.
Islam in of itself is arabization. In order to be a practicing Muslim you must learn to recite the quran in arabic, and recite it during your 5 daily prayers.
The whole history of Omar shows him to have been a man of great powers of mind, inflexible integrity, and rigid justice. He was, more than anyone else, the founder of the Islam empire; confirming and carrying out the inspirations of the prophet; aiding Abu Beker with his counsels during his brief caliphate; and establishing wise regulations for the strict administration of the law throughout the rapidly-extending bounds of the Moslem conquests. The rigid hand which he kept upon his most popular generals in the midst of their armies, and in the most distant scenes of their triumphs, gave signal evidence of his extraordinary capacity to rule. In the simplicity of his habits, and his contempt for all pomp and luxury, he emulated the example of the Prophet and Abu Beker. He endeavored incessantly to impress the merit and policy of the same in his letters to his generals. 'Beware,' he would say, 'of Persian luxury, both in food and raiment. Keep to the simple habits of your country, and Allah will continue you victorious; depart from them, and He will reverse your fortunes.' It was his strong conviction of the truth of this policy which made him so severe in punishing all ostentatious style and luxurious indulgence in his officers. Some of his ordinances do credit to his heart as well as his head. He forbade that any female captive who had borne a child should be sold as a slave. In his weekly distributions of the surplus money of his treasury he proportioned them to the wants, not the merits of the applicants. 'God,' said he, 'has bestowed the good things of this world to relieve our necessities, not to reward our virtues: those will be rewarded in another world.'
Sure we can say that there are two processes that are Islamization and arabization but to blame this for any problem in the Muslim world or use it to describe all things in Somalia and Malaysia both today and a century ago is silly.
>>576136 I love that we can put a very serious post with a very facetious photo and mean both of them at the same time with an equal amount of sincerity and irony.
Although part of it, I believe, is that he had more time to rule since Abu Bakr died soon after becoming khalifa رضي الله عنه
>>576079 >No because Ali proved himselfd to be an incable leader during his reign as calpih.
Only because he chose not to favor the same Arabs who fought against Muhammad before becoming Muslims when it was clear they were about to lose and instead rewarded those he felt had actual religious merit and distributed the entire treasury evenly among every Muslim regardless of class or when they converted or whether they were Arabs or not Arabs.
Ali's only flaw was that he was the only one who actually cared about preserving the principles of his own religion while Umar selectively chose what to follow from his religion and cared more about creating a powerful Arab empire than an Islamic caliphate.
>He was basically the Arabian Julius Caesar with the personality of Cato the younger.
If by that you mean he was a tyrant who hid behind a veil of piety than sure.
>>576136 >He is second to none as far as caliphs go. >denies Muhammad the right to put his will into writing as he lays dying >accepts Ali as the successor to Muhammad publicly >usurps the throne and gives it to an elderly puppet leads while Muhammad is being buried by his family >sets fire to Muhammad's daughter's house when Ali refuses to recognize Abu Bakr >forbids people from writing down hadith >intimidated his black brother Bilal for not endorsing Abu Bakr's rule until Bilal is forced to flee for his life >harasses and heckles his own general Khalid ibn Walid cause of some petty stuff >Arab supremacist >treats Persian slave like crap >get shanked by said slave >said slave gets a shrine built in his honor
For every tradition there is that makes Umar look like a competent and honorable statesmen, there's an equal number, if not more that make him look like a brute desperately trying to silence any criticism or opposition to his or Abu Bakr's right to rule and jealous of people who have more noble blood or character than himself or presenting himself as all about equity among believers while favoring those who support him with a little extra on top.
>>573151 There was this letter by Muslim scholars to the Islamic State that recounted their theological errors, most of it could be applied to Wahhabism in general I think.
The one that stood out for me (as a near total ignoramus in Islamic theology) is that Wahhabis insist on strictly literal interpretation of Quran and hadith, leading to some really weird results. Islam forbids you from antropomorphising God, but some passages use (obviously figurative) phrases like God having a throne, having hands, arms, etc. So if you read those literally, you end up antropomorphising him.
1. He became a Muslim after killing Umar 2. He was already a Muslim more or less by the time he killed Umar, after which he led a life of piety 3. No opinion at all. He could have been a Muslim, but there's not enough evidence and either way, Umar got what he deserved.
Various traditions on Abu Lulu's place exist. For instance, there's a tradition that after he killed Umar, while hiding from authorities, 'Ali saw where he was hiding, but didn't turn him in, something Abu Lulu takes notice of.
Another hadith has Abu Lulu, becoming aware of Umar's manhandling Muhammad's daughter and causing her miscarriage, asking Umar what would be the Islamic penalty for such an action (leaving out the fact that he's speaking of Umar's actions in particular). Umar tells Abu Lulu that the punishment would obviously be death according to the shariah. Of course, according to this tradition Abu Lulu uses this as a pretense to stab Umar in the mosque. Some Shi'a scholars have considered Abu Lulu one of the greatest "mujaheddin" and the vehicle through which Allah avenged Fatimah and delivered divine punishment. Those scholars who aren't convinced of his becoming a Muslim or a follower of 'Ali don't really condemn for an action that is Umar's own fault due to his mistreatment of the Persians and his actions against the family of Muhammad.
The shrine of Abu Lulu has always had its cult, but the current Iranian government doesn't really like a lot of these popular folk expressions of animosity towards the caliphs because they don't really help their efforts to get on the good side of the Sunni countries.
>>557322 >What is a bigger heresy? Praising Ali too much (Shia) or killing innocents and committing suicide (Sunni)? both are haram, but shirk is the ultimate kufr, i am not sunni or shia, i am muslim and i do not consider shia my brothers if they claim Ali and Mohammad PBUH can hear their prayers
>>579799 >when you pray to anything but Allah you commit shirk >pray
I don't think that word means what you think it means. Obviously praying to anyone besides Allah is shirk, but asking the saints and prophets for their intercession with God, that's just another way of praying to God himself. In this case, the prayer, in the general meaning, is to God either directly or indirectly.
Shi'a still perform their salah to God five times a day, but when it comes to other ordinary, optional supplications, it's perfectly permissible to ask the saints or prophets directly where it is relevant, provided one does not see them as independent entities apart from God. In the latter case, that would be considering them to be their own gods, but if they are dependent slaves and are in good standing with God, there's no shirk in asking them to pray for you or beseech God for something for you and in essence the two forms, asking God directly & asking God through an intermediary are one in the same. Love/veneration/seeking intercession does not equate to worship ('ibadah)
>when you pray to the graves
No Shi'a prays TO the graves. This is why nobody with a brain can take your disassociative religion seriously, you can't even properly use prepositions. Shi'a pray at graves sometimes because the graves of pious people are blessed by God and God has recommended their visitation. People either pray at the graves directly to God or they pray indirectly to God by asking the one whose body is buried at the grave to pray for them. But nobody prays to the graves nor are they taken as a point of direction during the salah. >hurt yourselves
>cry over them like its the end of the world
Better than being heartless monsters like so many Wahhabis. A lot of Wahhabi, Salafi, and reformed Sunni logic is absurd. They'd tell people that saying "I love you" to one's grandmother is idolatry cause "YOU'RE NOT SUPPOSED TO LOVE ANYONE BUT ALLAH!" if they could get away with it.
>"And call not those who are slain in the way of Allah "dead." Nay, they are living, only ye perceive not." >Surah 2:154
>And when it is said unto them: Come! The messenger of Allah will ask forgiveness for you! they avert their faces and thou seest them turning away, disdainful. >Surah 63:5
All the verses that speak against intercession are in reference to false, pagan gods. The intercession of angels and prophets is affirmed in the Qur'an as is the action of other Muslims praying for other Muslims.
>>578387 Pretty interesting, what are the alleged grievances from the Persians against Omar رضي الله عنه?
>>580574 What would you say to the contention that supplicating to with them as intermediaries is what the pagan Arabs did? The assumption being that since the latter is condemned in tbe Quran the former are.
I would never do this kind of action myself and it makes me uncomfortable in practice but I know a lot of big scholars were okay with it and this question has always been interesting for me.
>What would you say to the contention that supplicating to with them as intermediaries is what the pagan Arabs did? The assumption being that since the latter is condemned in tbe Quran the former are.
I think that's a misunderstanding of the nature of "worship" vis a vis a more simple veneration or piety.
In Surah 39:3, which you're referring to it says: "Surely pure religion is for Allah only. And those who choose protecting friends beside Him (say): We worship them only that they may bring us near unto Allah. Lo! Allah will judge between them concerning that wherein they differ. Lo! Allah guideth not him who is a liar, an ingrate."
two words stand out here: friends and worship. "Friends" or "protecting friends" in this translation is translated from "awliya" which is plural of "wali" and has also been translated into English in various contexts as "saints" or "guardians" as well. "Worship" here is a translation of "ibadah" which can also mean roughly "to serve" and is also connected to the words used in the context of human slavery to human masters as well as the slaves of God (cf. Surah 26:22 ) there's also it's connection to names beginning with 'Abd like Abdul Rahman (lit. servant of the Most Merciful [Allah]) or Abdul-Nabi (lit. 'servant of the Prophet'), but the context in the Qur'an where "ibadah" and its forms are used is most connected to the act of paying unique homage to Allah and/or other (false) deities, so the translation to "worship" is appropriate in English as the modern English language often defines worship as the unique homage paid to deities for the most part.
>>581734 As far as the term awliya or guardian/protectors/friends goes, all of these verses below are worth considering
1. (Saying): Follow that which is sent down unto you from your Lord, and follow no protecting friends beside Him. Little do ye recollect! [7:3] 2. O ye who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians for friends. They are friends one to another. He among you who taketh them for friends is (one) of them. Lo! Allah guideth not wrongdoing folk. [5:51] 3. O ye who believe! Choose not disbelievers for (your) friends in place of believers. Would ye give Allah a clear warrant against you? [4:144] 4. Your guardian can be only Allah; and His messenger and those who believe, who establish worship and pay the poordue, and bow down (in prayer). [5:55]
The term used here for friends/guardians/protectors is awliya. In one verse, it says "only God is your friend" and in some it chastises taking other "protectors" besides God. Still in others, it suggests that God is your protector friend (wali) AND the Prophet, those who establish worship and pay the poor due and bow down" (which in Shi'ite exegesis is an implicit reference to 'Ali) This may seem like a contradiction, but the verse below
>Ye slew them not, but Allah slew them. And thou threwest not when thou didst throw, but Allah threw, that He might test the believers by a fair test from Him. Lo! Allah is Hearer, Knower. --(8:17)
This verse is in reference to a miracle during the Battle of Badr where Muhammad is mentioned as grabbing a handful of dust and throwing it at the pagan armies, in which the handful became a dust storm. In the verse above, the Qur'an seems to equate the actions of the Prophet with his own. The Prophet is in this instance at least, a proxy of sorts for the Divine Being.
>>581738 In verses like 47:11, 3:160, 39:38, 36:23. 21:22, 23:91, and others, the Qur'an's understanding of what a god is or should be also becomes a little more clear. Usually the Qur'an's condemnations of intercession are the taking of other "gods" to be intercessors, especially other gods in relation to the worship of idols, in other parts it's clear the angels intercede for those on earth (42:5) and as mentioned at least a living Prophet was allowed to ask forgiveness for the believers, and in other verses all that's said of "intercession" is that it is limited "to those whom God pleaseth" or "none can intercede, save with Allah's permission" (cf. 2:255; 30:13). Of course other verses say ONLY God can "intercede" (see 32:4), but this could be easily understood in the same way that the Qur'an says only God is one's "friend/wali" just to turn around and say the Prophet is one's wali by extension of the first fact (and of course 'Ali by extension of that second fact and so on). The Qur'an's understanding of godhood is brought to light by the fact that the Qur'an tells the believers to ask the pagans, to paraphrase verses listed, things like "Can your intercessors stop the penalty of Allah?" or "Don't you see that if there were other gods, each god would have taken what belongs to itself?"
The Qur'an understands "gods" as beings who must as a rule possess absolute dominion over their own particular realms. The Qur'an points out that to the contrary, we live in a unified cosmos with many worlds under the dominion of one supreme God This does not mean there can't be intermediary beings. Because God is pure and transcendent, there must be a connection between the the higher and the lower. But none of these intermediary beings can be described as "gods" or "partners" in God's pure and eternal essence nor does the ability to communicate with them make them such anymore than being able to interact with each other on a daily basis makes us "gods beside God"
>>581763 But even the pre islamic pagans believed in Allah and claimed that they used other gods to get closer to Allah. How is it different? I inderstand saints are living people but after they're dead, how do you know your words are reaching them even if they are alive? Some say that the pre islamic gods were really jinn, if true what if they were good jin and you supplicated through them, wouldn't that be the same?
I always feel like there is some jump in these arguments. I get having friends that help you, respecting pious people living and dead, even asking a religious brother who is alive to pray for you or help you get closer to God but communicating with the dead and asking them to help you even if it is to help you get the help of God is strange.
Besides isn't the furtherst opinion that one can only use the Prophet as an intermediary? And if you can use any pious person this way, couldn't you ask Jesus to get you closer to God? This seems very Christian at least on the face of it.
I am very earnestly interested. This question always bothered me because people that are okay with توصل usually don't get too much into the justification and evidence. I presume your Shia but I doubt the arguments for both Sunnis and Shiis are similar for it.
>tfw as a young adult I converted to Islam >tfw it was in a hardcore Salafi masjid pretty much dominated by Saudis and Pakistanis
I have no idea what I was thinking. I really liked S.H. Nasr and Guenon, but I can't get over some fundamental aspects of Islam and I quickly bailed out and stopped going to the masjid altogether. I'm pretty sure I'm on their death list for apostasy.
Now I'm "into" Tantric Buddhism due to Marco Pallis. I really wish I started with a Shi'a masjid, however. I'd be curious to see where Id be now in my spiritual development.
Regardless, some aspects, especially dealing with violence and wrath on the part of God, of the Quran just put me off.
>>581146 >tfw I renamed my dynasty in CK2 to Nahavandi, restored the Persian Empire and the High Priesthood, drove out the Muslims and became the Saoshyant It was quite epic, Piruz would've been proud.
>>582071 Nope, white American. I grew up in a more or less agnostic house, but I am always really eager about the idea of being religious, but when it comes down to practice I've found myself lacking or getting frustrated over nitty gritty things (even the Islamic dislike of dogs was something I was turned off by, as were many aspects I saw as cultural ties simply being used for religious jurisdiction).
>>582076 Yeah, my area had two, the Salafi one and a black one (probably 95% Black, at least) so my options were limited, but as a potential and subsequently new white Muslim there was a lot of weird interactions with brothers at the masjid. I'm vegetarian which was a big no-no, and I wasn't interested in marrying their daughter in Pakistan...a little frustrating to say the least.
I'll have to check some of his videos out. Thank you for the suggestion, friend. Aside from that nice "X-files Islam" list do you have any other charts or recommendations? I'm only really familiar with Traditionalists like Nasr and Schoun.
>>582100 Fuck that, m8. Glad you left that mosque. Well, basically I'd highly just recommend the bayyinah institute, of which Nouman Ali Khan is the CEO. Their videos are usually centered around Tafsir of either a surah or a single ayat. The guy can speak for literal hours about a single ayat. I recommend this video to start you out with: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=84Z25CLXE1w Also check out his "thats messed up" series, where he tackles subjects like abuse, abortions, etc, from a muslim perspective and BTFO's angry fundamentalist/traditionalist muslims.
On the matter of other recommendations, I can only recommend a deep study of the Quran in Arabic. Memorize and reflect on some surahs. It changed me, I can tell you that much.
>>582167 I mean it's been over a decade, all of which arose from a comparative religion post-graduate study - I wasn't trying anything I found to be "horseshit." Frankly I was put off by cultural aspects at my local masjid and subsequently investigated another tradition that interested me on a different level.
I don't really understand why you're so bitter or why you lump all Westerners into one convenient to insult box. Frankly I was just posting for some quality advice.
>>582100 >the Islamic dislike of dogs I recall reading somewhere that this comes from the fact that Zoroastrians revere dogs so when one converted to Islam he had to maltreat a dog (for example by yanking its tail) to show that he truly denounced his faith and converted. That's how mistreatment of dogs became a Muslim custom. Is this true? Or is it just an Arab thing that became part of Islam?
>>582185 Arab thing, mate. The only actually islamic part of this is that a dog passing in front of you during prayer invalidates it, because stray dogs are generally very dirty animals. From this idea, many bullshit superstitions arose.
There is also a story about a prostitute who was drawing water from a well, when a thirsty dog passed by. She drew water for it and gave it some to drink. As the prophet(SAW) saw this, he commented that surely all her sins had been forgiven through this act of compassion.
>>582191 Now I'm not even really sure what you're saying. Again, sorry my practice as an anonymous stranger has angered you and also furthered your misconceptions about a massive group of individuals.
>>582185 I've heard a few theories on the topic, but none of them dealt with the Zoroastrian practice you mentioned. No member encouraged dog abuse, just avoidance (you had to redo your wudu if a dog passed you, for example). It seemed to me that the Arabs were more keen on avoiding dogs than other ethnic groups there, but this is again my individual perception. I was told by an Iranian friend that it has something to do with nomadic traditions, but maybe another person can shed some truth on it.
>>582198 I remember that story, too, it's stuff like that which is nice to hear about Muhammad's life. As I said, most of my understanding of Muhammad comes from Nasr and Lings, but I often forget stories like what you mentioned.
>>582207 Yeah, there are a lot of was to invalidate wudu, like farting for instance.
>>582214 a dog passing you doesn't invalidate wudu, though. Touching one does, but just passing one doesn't.
People make Islam so difficult, man. How the fuck are you supposed to pray in Cairo, then? Dogs are fucking everywhere. Farting invalidates it mainly because praying is preferrably a communal thing. When you're praying in front of a dude and you fart, that messes everyone up.
>>582218 You sure do seem angry for someone who is laughing.
Frankly whatever emotion you take seems to be negative, and that's on you, friend. You can be as dismissive of others and sure of yourself as you want to be; I'm sure it helps your own growth quite a bit.
>>582230 That's interesting. Perhaps I remembered incorrectly, as like I said this was quite a long time ago, you know, when Islam was evidently "flavor of the month"?
>>582241 It could also have been your teachers being "lets take everything the prophet implied and TURN IT UP TO 11 WOOH TAKBEEEEER TAKBEEEER".
There are plenty of stories of the prophet(SAW) speaking of moderates in a loving and praising manner. There's this one little book called "paths to the hearts" that's only available in very few languages, I'm not sure if English is one of them. In it, there are a lot of examples like this. It's by Abbas al-Sisi, who was a member of the muslim brotherhood in Egypt, but who spoke of a much more loving and kind approach to Islam.
If you want I can relate some of the stories to you on here.
>>582327 Ok, I read the book a while ago, so forgive me that I don't recall specific names.
One day, the prophet(SAW) and some of the sahabi were sitting in the masjid, when a man walks in, his beard still wet from wuduu.
As the man starts his prayer, the prophet(SAW) says to his sahabi: "surely, this man will go to paradise". The sahabi took note, but didn't pursue the matter. The next day, this man came to the masjid again, and while he prayed, the messenger of Allah repeated his statement of the previous day: "surely, this man will go to paradise".
Now it intrigued the sahabi. Why would the messenger of Allah mention this twice? What important thing does this man do, which we all need to learn?
A young sahab decided to go to the man in question with a plan to find out more. He told the man after he was finished praying: "Assalaam aleikum, brother. Me and my father have been arguing as of late, and I would like to sleep elsewhere for a while. Could I stay at your house?" The plan was to observe what special thing this man did, without him feeling observed. He agreed and off they went.
The sahab stayed at the mans house for a week, becoming more puzzled by the day. He was a good man, but not especially so it seemed. He often actually slept through Fajr prayer, except when he happened to be awake anyway. At the end of the week, the sahab told the man the truth: "Brother, I don't actually have an argument with my father. The prophet said that you would surely go to heaven, and I wished to find out why, but I can't figure it out. What is it you do? How do you live our religion?" To which the man replied: "well, I'm not especially learned or pious, but I wish upon my brother that which I wish upon myself. That is all I know."
>>581956 >But even the pre islamic pagans believed in Allah and claimed that they used other gods to get closer to Allah. How is it different?
Not even pagans believed all intermediary beings between God and themselves were necessarily other gods, but that there were angels, djinn, prophets and the like. There was also difference in pagan circles as to where godhood began and ended, the Qur'an offers a clear definition of what a god is and isn't in such a way that there can be only one perfect God, but such a definition does not exclude intermediary beings who cannot correctly be described as gods regardless of whatever powers they appear to possess. Also, a perfect transcendent deity would require intermediary beings to communicate between itself and those further beneath it. So the difference is that when you call something a god, even if you acknowledge it as created, you are still contradicting yourself (because how can anything that has its origin in something else be called a god, or so the Qur'an says) but if your beliefs about that object/being are otherwise completely correct and your only error is that you consider it to be a god (and thus somehow an independent authority over you or something in its own right), then you only need to shake off that one misconception. The Qur'an condemns taking anything as an intercessory without warrant from God, and it also condemns considering anything a god that is in fact imaginary or created by God himself to be wrong, but these two should not be confused with one another. The Qur'an does affirm intercession by those whom God has warranted to intercede, and who by definition are not gods, and even goes so far as to equate their intercession with God's own broader intercession.
>>580604 the first one talks about martyrs, and it doesent say they will hear us
the second verse is when Muhammed was ALIVE
>>580574 >This is why nobody with a brain can take your disassociative religion seriously im NOT sunni, get it through your thick skull, i follow quran alone, not everyone who thinks shia are kuffar is wahabi
you just go thorugh so much mental gymnastic to justify prayign to saints, like christians do with mary, no wonder so many deviant sects came from shia who said Ali was allah, you start with this then go full retard, there is no use to ask a saint or prophet to pray for you, everyone can ask for allahs forgivness even SATAN prayed for life until the final day, are you worst than SATAN that you need another human to pray on your behalf? face it, you cant say im kaffir because i follow quran, but what you do is not in the quran
[shakir 22:73] O people! a parable is set forth, therefore listen to it: surely those whom you call upon besides Allah cannot create fly, though they should all gather for it, and should the fly snatch away anything from them, they could not take it back from weak are the invoker and the invoked.
>>581956 >>584170 Also, the intermediaries are to be seen as a means by which one achieves closeness to God based on this verse:
O ye who believe! Be mindful of your duty to Allah, and seek the way of approach unto Him, and strive in His way in order that ye may succeed. --5:35
And of the wandering Arabs there is he who believeth in Allah and the Last Day, and taketh that which he expendeth and also the prayers of the messenger as acceptable offerings in the sight of Allah. Lo! verily it is an acceptable offering for them. Allah will bring them into His mercy. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful. --9:99
"the means of nearness" have always been interpreted by many if not most traditional commentators as general good deeds, as well as the prayers and supplications of intercessors.
>I inderstand saints are living people but after they're dead, how do you know your words are reaching them even if they are alive?
>And call not those who are slain in the way of Allah "dead." Nay, they are living, only ye perceive not. --2:154
is reference to the rightly guided martyrs. However, it is also been taken to mean those who "are slain" without bodily death, as in the case of the saints who have achieved such unity with God that they "have died before they die". Also, it's generally held at least in Shi'ism that the saints and prophets do not experience barzakh nor do they die like normal people
>It has been narrated to us from Muawiya Bin Hakeem, from Al-Husayn Bin Ali Al-Washa, who has said: (Imam) Abu Al-Hassan Al-Reza (as) said to me in Khurasan, "I saw the Messenger of Allah (saww) over here and offered my (Salam) to Him." --Basaair Al-Darajaat, Vol. 6, Ch. 5 Hadith #1
>'Ali said: 'When one of Us is dead, He is not dead, and when one of Us remains, the remaining One is a Proof on you all."--Basaair Al-Darajaat, Vol. 6, Ch. 5, Hadith #4
Either way, the question of how they can hear now that they're "dead" is a technical matter, not one of shirk
>Some say that the pre islamic gods were really jinn, if true what if they were good jin and you supplicated through them, wouldn't that be the same?
If they were good djinn, would they claim to be gods?
>Besides isn't the furtherst opinion that one can only use the Prophet as an intermediary? And if you can use any pious person this way, couldn't you ask Jesus to get you closer to God? This seems very Christian at least on the face of it.
If anything, considering the Prophet as the sole and sufficient intermediary would also be very "Christians" considering that the reason many Protestants reject the Catholic and Orthodox ideas of venerating saints and seeking their intermediation is due to their belief that Christ is sole and sufficient intermediary and that there is no need for any other redeemers.
The idea "this is like the Christians" always feels more like a last line of defense when it's brought up, as though a similarity to another religion is a cause for rejection of the concept. We also believe Jesus is "the Messiah" "like the Christians" should we reject Jesus is the Messiah, even though it clearly says he is in the Qur'an, just because this is similar to the Christians. I could argue that Wahhabism is a lot like Deism. That doesn't suddenly make Wahhabism or Deism wrong if there arguments stand up to scrutiny and they happen to agree on some things.
>>584182 >the first one talks about martyrs, and it doesent say they will hear us
Why wouldn't they be able to hear us?
Also, if the Prophet is higher in rank than the martyrs, it is absolutely unbefitting that the martyrs are "alive" while he is "dead"
Also, to be slain in the way of Allah has always been the goal of the mystics from whom the body of the saints are drawn as they mystics seek to "die to themselves" in the way of Allah. Those who achieve this "death before death" are also "martyrs"
>the second verse is when Muhammed was ALIVE
It still applies now because he's not really "dead".
>im NOT sunni, get it through your thick skull, i follow quran alone, not everyone who thinks shia are kuffar is wahabi
Your beliefs are clearly wahabist in nature, whether you claim to be a quran aloner or not. It's quite obvious that despite your insistence on quran alone, you are still interpreting it through the lens of a reformist Wahabi position. This is why the quran alone position is honestly kind of dumb, because each individual approaches the text according to their religious or intellectual background, which for most Quran aloners is usually that of either Sunnism or Wahhabism. It is following principles of one or both of these that lead them to the Qur'an Alone position. So the idea that you are somehow divorced from the misconceptions of either party simply because you claim to reject the hadith is just not true as your particular reading of the text is mostly informed by the values of these parties, particularly Wahhabism's more extreme literalism.
>>584182 >you just go thorugh so much mental gymnastic to justify prayign to saints,
Actually engaging the subtlety of a religious text widely held to have various layers of meaning and considering how it has been interpreted for generations upon generations by scholars trained in the different religious sciences, particularly those relating to the esoteric meaning of the book, is not really "mental gymnastics" neither is pointing out the blatant misconceptions people have about the Shi'a faith and the meaning or purpose behind its rituals based on their own stereotypes and limited knowledge
>like christians do with mary
Again, "like the christians" is not a rational argument.
>there is no use to ask a saint or prophet to pray for you
That's not what the Qur'an says...
>everyone can ask for allahs forgivness even SATAN prayed for life until the final day, are you worst than SATAN that you need another human to pray on your behalf?
Iblis' request was granted to him because of his thousands upon thousands of years of service to God before his rebellion.
Also, again, Shi'a don't always ask saints or prophet directly. It appears that you have a notion that Shi'a never talk to God directly but ONLY through intermediaries, but this isn't the case. But the asking of the saints or prophets for their intercession is simply a means to increase one's blessings when added on top of one's regular prayers and petitions directed towards God, because God is more likely to reward/forgive one who seeks the means of closeness to him than the one who doesn't. Also seeking their intercession also helps bring into effect the transformation of one's character by giving a model of emulation as well as someone to help protect one's self from the sinful forces of the world such as false gods, unbelievers and various forms of temptation.
>>584294 >Why wouldn't they be able to hear us? cuz it doesn't say that explicitly, and the quran does not EVER suggest to do tawasul to people who passed away
>It still applies now because he's not really "dead". but you cant ask him face to face
>>584294 >Your beliefs are clearly wahabist in nature, whether you claim to be a quran aloner or not. It's quite obvious that despite your insistence on quran alone, you are still interpreting it through the lens of a reformist Wahabi position. This is why the quran alone position is honestly kind of dumb, because each individual approaches the text according to their religious or intellectual background, which for most Quran aloners is usually that of either Sunnism or Wahhabism. It is following principles of one or both of these that lead them to the Qur'an Alone position. So the idea that you are somehow divorced from the misconceptions of either party simply because you claim to reject the hadith is just not true as your particular reading of the text is mostly informed by the values of these parties, particularly Wahhabism's more extreme literalism. if u disagree u are wahabi :^), nice meme, but im not saying you should be killed for calling upon Ali, im just stating a FACT that you are committing shirk >>584314 >Again, "like the christians" is not a rational argument. so you would agree with them that praying to mary is halal?
>>584314 >That's not what the Qur'an says... yeah its true but only when u see them face to face
Matti Moosa's work is kind of problematic, as he sometimes interprets the doctrines of the sects he's studying according to his own understanding and none of his works have been endorsed by the sects' he's written on. Some of his sources also include sources hostile to these groups.
I would recommend if you're interested in Alevism, you browse this website first:
The Bektashi are Alevi in theology but not all Alevi are Bektashi Sufi Order or identify with it formally. But they are one of the most organized Alevi elements
Also check out some of the books listed here >>558322 dealing with Bektashism/Alevism (some of which are available through the Bektashi website)
Really, the Alevis, despite their stronger Sufi leanings and folk beliefs, are more orthodox than they are often portrayed by the likes of men like Moosa.
There's also a very good entry about Alevism and their political and social relationship with the Shi'a of Turkey in pic related.
>>584356 The leader of the Iranian Revolution in 1989, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, wrote extensively on Islamic Jurisprudence. A two-volume book, which was published originally in Arabic, was called ‘Tahrir al Wasilah’. Translated into Farsi, the book is called “Tahrirolvasyleh.” (read entire text here.) Khomeini also had another treatise on Islamic rules for living, called in English, “The Little Green Book.” (see entire text here.) It is useful to understand what an esteemed Islamic leader such as the Ayatollah teaches his followers.
A man can have sexual pleasure from a child as young as a baby. However, he should not penetrate vaginally, but sodomising the child is acceptable. If a man does penetrate and damage the child then, he should be responsible for her subsistence all her life. This girl will not count as one of his four permanent wives and the man will not be eligible to marry the girl’s sister… It is better for a girl to marry at such a time when she would begin menstruation at her husband’s house, rather than her father’s home. Any father marrying his daughter so young will have a permanent place in heaven. ["Tahrirolvasyleh", fourth edition, Qom, Iran, 1990]
A man can have sex with animals such as sheep, cows, camels and so on. However, he should kill the animal after he has his orgasm. He should not sell the meat to the people in his own village, but selling the meat to a neighbouring village is reasonable.
If one commits the act of sodomy with a cow, a ewe, or a camel, their urine and their excrement become impure and even their milk may no longer be consumed. The animal must then be killed as quickly as possible and burned.
>>584351 >cuz it doesn't say that explicitly, and the quran does not EVER suggest to do tawasul to people who passed away
It does not ever suggest not to.
>if u disagree u are wahabi :^), nice meme,
I'm not calling you a Wahhabi because you disagree with me, I'm saying your beliefs are clearly have parallels with the the Wahhabi movement's whether you disassociate from them or not. The Qur'an Alone position is mostly derived from the same reformist views of the Wahhabi Movement and criticisms of Wahhabism can equally apply in this case to your Qur'anist positions, which are based on the same literalism, the application of subjective reasoning to the Quran without any knowledge or even blatant ignorance of practically 1400 years of religious history, commentary and scholarly debate, as well as just an irrational conception of the divinity which would be wrong even if the Qur'an happened to be a book that supported it. But at least Wahhabis actually can try to defend their position with some hadith.
>so you would agree with them that praying to mary is halal?
If the intention is merely to seek the intercession of God's servant and to ask her to pray for you, there's no harm in this. The harm comes when you consider her to be the "God-bearer" or things like that, not regarding her as a blessed servant. Intention is what is important here, not necessarily the outer form. Also, whether or not Mary can hear you is a different issue besides whether its shirk to speak to her. One could argue that she can't hear you, but that to believe she can isn't shirk.
>>584351 >yeah its true but only when u see them face to face
Even if we accept that some verses abrogate the explicit instructions in previous verses, the general position is that all verses of the Qur'an in principle are applicable to our experience one way or another (this is why Muslims have been able to use the Qur'an to justify both war and pacifism depending on the situation they find themselves in). What purpose does it serve that a book for all peoples in all times says "Ask the Prophet to pray for you," but such verses are only relevant to the Arabs gathered around Muhammad when he was alive? If Muhammad can't pray for you now that he's "dead", what was the point of him doing so while alive? According to your point of view in a previous post, the prayers of saints and prophets for us are useless, and if you meant only when they're dead, why should death even be a hindrance for God's greatest servants? Heck, for a Qur'an Aloner, one would think you'd have a more open mind here regarding the nature of the afterlife but your conception of it is mostly that found in scattered Sunni hadith in books like Bukhari and Muslim. Also, by your logic too, Jesus can hear us better than Muhammad because Jesus never died while Muhammad at least died once.
The closest the Qur'an comes to this issue are verses like this
>But if We should send a [bad] wind and they saw [their crops] turned yellow, they would remain thereafter disbelievers. For verily thou (Muhammad) canst not make the dead to hear, nor canst thou make the deaf to hear the call when they have turned to flee. Nor canst thou guide the blind out of their error. Thou canst make none to hear save those who believe in Our revelations so that they surrender (unto Him). --30:51-53
the context of this verse though is clearly telling the Prophet he can't force the "spiritually dead" the deaf, dumb and blind to heed the revelation (referencing the unbelievers)
Also, both Sunnis and Shi'a are agreed that the Prophet is made aware of who gives their salams to him. Some hadith suggest he's informed this by the angels, others that he hears it directly.
That part of Khomeini's book is widely mistranslated and copy pasted on every anti-Iranian or anti-Mullah site there is.
Khomeini permitted marriage with a girl younger than 9 years of age but prohibited intercourse of any sort and this I believe is also the position of his successor Khamenei, though I think Khamenei regards the age of intercourse to be older. Not sure about that though.
Iran's clergy have always universally prohibited bestiality since the revolution.
>is this your "imam"?
No, Khomeini is the imam or marja of his own followers. I don't follow him as my marja nor do I agree with his political views (I'm more of a monarchist). Khomeini isn't even the marja of the majority of Shi'a. Most Shi'a follow one of the many other ayatollahs. Khomeini's cult is just strong because it's supported by the Iranian government (when most Iranians don't follow Khomeini or Khamenei as anything more than a political leader)
It's really NOT good. While outsiders can offer unique perspectives on the activities and beliefs of others, the risk is always that the individual is misrepresenting these beliefs accidentally or purposely, especially if that person has some kind of agenda.
It'd be like if you wanted to learn about what Catholics believe and how they understand their own creeds, so you read a book by an Orthodox Jew on Catholicism and his take on these beliefs. That might be interesting in itself, but you can't be sure to what degree the representation is correct unless you study how these people view themselves.
Case in point, Bektashi believe in a kind of unity between Allah-Muhammad-Ali, and don't understand this to be in huge contradiction to many of the mainstream Shi'a theological positions. But if you just read Moosa's book, you'd almost get the impression that the Bektashi are so extremely heterodox and practically Christian in their belief in a "trinity" but the Bektashi understand the "trinity" of Allah-Muhammad-Ali to be completely different in principle from the three persons, one god doctrine of the Christians and identify more with their Orthodox Sunni and Shi'a counterparts than with any Christian denomination and their doctrines rely mainly on interpretation of hadith attributed to the Shi'a Imams and Sufi sages, exegesis of the Quran and the teachings of their namesake Haji Bektash Veli
You know that in the Middle East people still use opiates from opium plants as medicine, especially for chronic pain, right? Ayatollah Khoei I don't recall regarded opium as on the level of wine/alcoholic beverages and why would he? Until recently, opium and hashish were widespread throughout the middle east as both recreation and medicinal substances whose lack of mention in the hadith afforded them some leeway in many Islamic countries, especially those places like Afghanistan where the plants served as one of the only means for the locals to make any money. American housewives and war veterans were buying Opium syringes over the counter until like 80 years ago.
Also, Ayatollahs are not regarded infallible by way of occupation. They're held to standards, but one not being a saint does not necessarily negate one's basic understanding and knowledge of jurisprudence. They're scholars of law, not priests or monks. Some ayatollahs become regarded as saints or almost-saints by their followers when they are seen as reaching a certain level (Khomeini's followers practically elevated him to the status of a gnostic saint), but most are just respected as learned men in charge of studying the law and theology who can still make some mistakes in their personal lives. Most of the time if a particular mujtahid or marja becomes regarded as some kind of actual saint, this cult is confined only to his most immediate followers since there is no church in Shi'ism that canonizes the saints, rather different scholars and lay believers just come to a mutual consensus on a historical figure's supposed rank. Certain figures may be universally praised by all Shi'a (such as Abbas ibn Ali) or confined to particular segments of the Shi'a as is the case with the cults of some of the more famous mujtahids or with the different Sufi saints whose sanctity by Shia standards is always a topic of debate.
>>584859 >that is realistically irrelevant to his rule as caliph
It's not irrelevant because only somebody who embodies the same character as the Prophet should have any right to the caliphate. If you let fallible men rule in the name of the caliphate and selectively decide what rules of the religion are right solely based on realpolitik, you're really just throwing the religion itself out the window. Calling Umar a good administator is one thing, calling him a good "successor" to the prophet is another. A person can be the worst Muslim in the world, but be a fairly good ruler from a technical standpoint. Good rulers often don't last long because most human beings don't want a "good" ruler in any real sense unless they themselves are what we might call very "good" and most human beings aren't very good.
Bad rulers don't last long either because the majority of people grow tired very quickly with a tyrant who cares mostly about his own self-interests against others', but to hate a ruler because he acts against your self interest is not really a virtue. But a ruler who mixes good and evil together based on what keeps his reign most intact will likely last long because he binds himself by "what works" not by what is ideal. But in the case of the "caliph", the true caliph has to rule perfectly according to the Prophet's will which he means he can't intentionally mix any evil with good in his leadership in any way but must reflect the Prophet in all matter of leadership, not some but not others.
People generally accept the leaders they most deserve and quickly reject those they least deserve, depending on their collective disposition.
Calling Umar a functioning leader might be appropriate if by that you simply mean that he reflected the temperament of those he ruled over well enough to control them and keep them together. But that doesn't make him a good caliph, it just makes the people who accepted his rule bad Muslims.
>Couldn't even control the Ummah or stop the Fitnah during his reign
You can't force people to behave and obey you unless they are already fairly inclined to do so. The people who fought 'Ali either did not accept his rule to begin with or they had claimed to accept his rule only to rebel when his rule didn't serve their interests. None of this can blamed on any fault of Ali.
Also, the idea of Ali being the/a manifestation of God wouldn't need to imply that Ali still isn't accurately to be described as "a servant of God" as this notion of theophany tends to be separate from the Christian notion of "incarnation" in regarding Ali as separate from the essence of divinity while manifesting the attributes or characteristics of said divinity.
And given that God says he allows evil ones, such as the devil, to have "respite" to commit mischief until the Day of Judgement, the idea that Ali could have asked God to destroy all the unbelievers who rebelled against him in one fell swoop and God would have granted it but yet this did not happen, does not present a huge problem. Again, the failure of Ali's reign was something that was foretold, at least as far as the Shi'a are concerned.
Christians don't seem to have an issue with Jesus dying and suffering when he could easily escape since this is part of God's bigger plan of salvation. Shi'ism also shares a notion that greatest moments of triumph for the Imams are persecution and martyrdom, with gives them higher credit with God and incriminates the worldly, although most Shi'a accept that Jesus wasn't one of these martyrs (except a few sects like the Ismailis that believe that Jesus was crucified)
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at firstname.lastname@example.org with the post's information.