Critically Assessing Islam/Traditionalism

also, here's a little thing about Hadiths OP

There are maaaaaany hadiths, which means they are not 100% waterproof, In fact i'm absolutely sure a respectable percentage of them is miscarried or simply false (Also, historially there were many smear campaigns against muhammed by creating false hadiths during the 7th-10th centuries)

youtube.com/watch?v=CC4TuYrSNJs

TLDR always revert to the quran before the hadiths.
and ONLY follow *mutawater* (essential, trusted, authentic) hadiths

>Those Shi'as literally harm themselves with swords and knives because MUH ALI
It's not required, and it's an expression of mourning. What's wrong with it besides it not fitting your personal tastes?

>idols
What are you referring to.

I don't say why hadith should be categorically rejected. There is a methodology for determining which hadith are reliable or not. Quran itself says that one must follow the Prophet's examples and commands. So Quranism doesn't make much sense.

This is your new religion

>allah is God; that Ba'al is God.
I'm not going to insult your intelligence by asking you if you really believe this, right? oh wait, you do, you historical illiterate

First of all, Baal was a phoenician god, i don't even know how the fuck you keep bundling him with satan is beyond me

Second, Muhammed in fact fought the pre-islamic people who worshipped baal, people like abu jahl

>nd it's an expression of mourning. What's wrong with it besides it not fitting your personal tastes?
The fact that you literally stab and harm yourself despite the quran saying "la tuadu nafsakom ila attahluka" (Do not lead yourselves to harm)

Shias are quite literally the Emos of islam

>What are you referring to.
The fact that shias worship saints despite it being heavily unislamic and many many of them worship ali himself or the 12 imams etc

But you see, I consider the Imams of Shi'i Islam to be trustworthy authorities and exemplary individuals. So why shouldn't I follow trust their assessments on the issue?

>Shi'a Islam is more reliable than Sunni

Top kek

Just please listen to the entirety of the video

shias tend to self-harm and that doesn't make sense. They also keep longer fasts than sunni muslims.
It's harder to be a shia than to be a sunni.
I suggest to become a sunni.

Good job on converting. Be careful though. It has a lot of baggage and prejudice in the west.

You cannot reject all of the hadiths as unreliable without rejecting the Quran since most of the narrators of hadith are the very same people who passed down the Quran itself. This is why the Quranists are considered apostates by nearly all Muslims

>3. Islam is the most reliably transmitted tradition.

this is simply not the case.

the historicity of the quran and the integrity of current texts from the original material is *VERY MUCH* in question. You just won't hear it mentioned too loudly by mainstream academics because they're afraid of reprisals, be they institutional attacks on their careers or physical violence.

theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1999/01/what-is-the-koran/304024/

nytimes.com/2002/03/02/arts/scholars-are-quietly-offering-new-theories-of-the-koran.html

>Christoph Luxenberg, a scholar of ancient Semitic languages in Germany, argues that the Koran has been misread and mistranslated for centuries. His work, based on the earliest copies of the Koran, maintains that parts of Islam's holy book are derived from pre-existing Christian Aramaic texts that were misinterpreted by later Islamic scholars who prepared the editions of the Koran commonly read today.

>So, for example, the virgins who are supposedly awaiting good Islamic martyrs as their reward in paradise are in reality ''white raisins'' of crystal clarity rather than fair maidens.

firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2010/09/quran-historical-criticism

I mean I just watched the scrolling text in the beginning and I already agree so is there any point in watching the rest? It seems to me that those are the same criticisms Shi'a use against Sunni.

The arabic version of the quran can't be mistranslated so it hasn't been changed and is reliable.
checkmate

Thanks, I'll look into that. I've been meaning to look into those kinds of criticisms. In any case, even if you reject the absolute reliability of the Quran, would you reject the proposition that it is the MOST reliable, i.e. more reliable than other traditions? That seems to be the case for me. Other traditions have far greater transmission issues, even if we do accept for the sake of argument that Islam also has its issues.

>It seems to me that those are the same criticisms Shi'a use against Sunni.
No not exactly.

Shi'ites actually use those shitty unauthentic hadiths to diss the sahaba, whereas competent scholars will disregard most hadiths (because they're practically unsourceable) and only follow mutawatir hadiths because they're 100% authentic

If you have resources dealing with these issues (links, book reccomendations) I would appreciate it. Not that interested in youtube vids.

slideshare.net/nsnirjhor/a-collection-of-mutawatir-hadith

there are words in and segments of the Qur'an that are not even Arabic, and are incomprehensible even to speakers of classical Arabic.

It doesn't help that there were, at one point, many different, often conflicting, versions of the qur'an. Most of those were destroyed, though.

yeah because they were false

it isn't true, brvh

>there are words in and segments of the Qur'an that are not even Arabic
Care to cite them?

Thanks, but isn't that just a collection of hadith? I meant resources arguing for your point of view.

>converting to Islam
It boggles my mind that there are people this genuinely stupid in the world.

I look forward to reading about your inevitable suicide bombing, after you decide Shia isn't hard-core enough and you join Islamic State.

I would reject that proposition as well. We really have little to no hard evidence of what exactly went down during Mohammad's lifetime, if Mohammad the man described in the Qur'an even existed in a form comparable to the text. The idea that the Quran has been "perfectly" preserved, or even relatively well preserved from day 1 is nonsense. The Qur'an that has been handed down to today is one of a few competing qurans that were compiled after Mohamad's death, and spurred by the death in battle of a number of his companions who had memorized verses.

These men died without transmitting information, so there's possibly quite a lot that has been lost. Furthermore, when the "final" qur'ans were being compiled, many qur'anic texts that contradicted the main bodies being developed were burned or otherwise destroyed in order to prevent "confusion".

A lot of the "revelatory" texts that DID survive themselves are eerily reminiscent of heretical Christian works that were floating around the region shortly before Mohammad, and may have been plagiarized by Mohammad himself, or accidentally mixed in by his followers, thinking they were originally handed down from Mohammad.

quran-islam.org/articles/hadith_not_from_prophet_(P1177).html

OP do yourself a favor and convert to Alevi. Actually you will have to convert to Bektashi since conversion to Alevi is not allowed.

Alevi = Shia Islam + Shamanism + Buddhism + Zoroastrianism + Christianity

I'm sure the guys who burned them wanted you to think that.

>OP do yourself a favor and convert to Alevi
Congratulations on shiiirk and kuuuufr

check'd
also op is a cuck

Thank you.

Now go back to your 6th century pigsty ya filthy arab

As far as the unreliability of the Quran I cannot comment since I haven't looked into it in detail, but I intend to. Common sense seems to reject that opinion though.

As far as plagiarizing heretical sects, well heretical is a pretty loaded term. Who says they didn't have the right ideas (more or less), whereas mainstream "Pauline" Christianity is deviated?

>We really have little to no hard evidence of what exactly went down during Mohammad's lifetime
that's wrong
muhammed's life was one of the most document lives ever, and mecca was one of the biggest trading routes in the known world

there's nothin more shit than someone who mixes up all religions and calls it a day because he can't make up his mind and pick one

Arabs were extremely serious about preserving the quran though.

Honestly, I really don't get the appeal of Islam to Guenonian perennialists at all.

It's yet another Abrahamic sect that popped up one day in the middle of nowhere in a region already heavily influenced by outside ideas. It's not even that fucking old..

It claims to have a monopoly on truth, and advocates the violent removal of polytheistic religions and traditions. It's all about revealed truths, nothing primordial about that shit, other than the claim to universality common to almost every religious system.

Give me some reliable non-Muslim sources about Mohamad's life. Hell, even """reliable""" contemporary Muslims sources will do

I'd also like to see some evidence for your contention that Mecca was one of the biggest trading routes in the "known" (by whom?) world

I'll wait.

>and advocates the violent removal of polytheistic religions and traditions
stop this meme

the quran clearly states that "let there be no compulsion in religion"

I use the word simply to indicate that they were ties to groups not part of the main Christian church that would go on to the modern day.

they probably should have started writing it down during mohamad's lifetime then.

Arabs were good at memorization

Wll you obviously ought to examine the religion more closely. Guenon, Schuon, Lings, etc are onviously very intelligent individuals. They wouldn't have accepted it haphazardly or without thought. So perhaps your impression of Islam is fundamentally mistaken. Try to research into its beliefs with an open mind.

> “Say to those who have disbelieved, if they cease (from disbelief) their past will be forgiven... And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and polytheism: i.e. worshipping others besides Allah) and the religion (worship) will all be for Allah Alone [in the whole of the world ]. But if they cease (worshipping others besides Allah), then certainly, Allah is All-Seer of what they do.” Translation from the Noble Quran (8:38-39)

"But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practice regular charity, then open the way for them..." (9:5)

sure dude, I'm sure they told you that too

This is kinda anecdotal, but according to Marmaduke Pickthall the Quran is a remarkably easy text to memorize.

For arabs it is because it has alot of poetry

>Not mixing the best of religions
>Believing in a fucking Arab moon god

I'm not really a fan of Guenon or Schuon, but I was once very much a follower of the perennial school, especially Evola, and myself had a period where I strongly considered becoming a Shia Muslim.

I really wanted to approach Islam seriously, but the more I looked and read into it the more nonsensical it seemed.

I appreciate the aims of the perennialists, but I think they were telling themselves things about Islam that simply were not true, probably spurred on by disillusionment with the western traditions and an orientalist fascination with the old world.

what's wrong with being disillusioned with western traditons and liking the old world?

The early arabs were extremely good memorizers because their only form of art was poetry

Reminder that shi'ism was started by a Zoroastrian jew

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdullah_ibn_Saba'

Well for me there are several points in favor of Islam:
1. The Quran: this is anecdotal, based on my own experience, but having read the Quran I concluded that it has a definite Revelatory character, that it could not be a merely human production.
2. Reliability of transmission, and trustworthiness and exemplary character of the Imams.
3. It's explicit concern with Truth in the metaphysical/absolute sense. There is a difference between saying "our religion is the true one" (most religions claim this) and saying "our religion is that which is concerned with Truth as such" (Islam). One could argue that this applies to other Eastern religions, and I wouldn't dispute that, byt I find, so far in my research, that Islam is both more reliable (point 2) and that it is more "complete" (it takes all aspects of human life into account in a very satisfactory manner).

These are largely a matter of feeling and opinion though. I would say to you that as long as your primary concern is with Truth as such you are on the right path.

because I think they had orientalist fantasies in their head about ancient traditions in the spooky old world, hidden away from the corruptions of modernity. I think Guenon had some delusions about Islam and the orient that prevented him from looking at it objectively. This, of course, worsened by the low quality of western scholarship about Islam at the time.

very good and elaborate post.

t. Shlomo Shekelstein

you're not helping your case by appealing to /pol/, abu

people these days believe that religions are a series of rituals that you believe in and perform and all other aspects of human life have nothing to do with them.
There's lots of people that hate the fact that islam says you can use violence to defend yourself, while these very same people believe that militaries should exist.
Islam has an opinion on almost everything and many of those beliefs are what populists believe today.

nobody gives a shit that the Qur'an says you can defend yourself. People dislike the fact that the Qur'an advocates offensive violence.

But it doesn't really.

Quran (2:216) - "Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not."

Quran (9:29) - "Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued."

Quran (9:5) "But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practice regular charity, then open the way for them..."

What's wrong with offensive violence. Even liberals support it.

All those passages imply that fighting is something that is necessary and is a part of human nature.

Islam doesn't say that you cannot conquer territories. But it does say you can't force people to accept Islam and you shouldn't kill people that are subdued and repent for their crimes (waging war against muslims).

People dislike that Islam mentions fighting at all meanwhile they vote for war and send their warplanes to foreign territories to bomb the shit out of them. All democratic nations support war because they vote for governments that carry out offensive violence.
Seems kind of hypocritical to call Islam barbaric doesn't it?

Read their whole suras dipshit

next time make an effort if you want to shit on something

None of those say shit about human nature.
They are advocating active violence against people who refuse to accept Islam. I don't know what the fuck keeps you from picking up on the meaning of "fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them."

I mean, fuck, 9:29 is one of the last verses Mohammad supposedly dropped.

I've read 9, I see nothing here that changes my mind.

>Quran (2:216) - "Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not."
what do you think this means?
It means fighting is in human nature. Fighting determines too much of the course of the world. Did peaceful people conquer all the territories in the past?
Peaceful people who can't defend themselves with violence are eventually conquered by others that are willing use the guns. How do you think your european ancestors conquered all those colonies? It was by force.
Then you call islam barbaric?

It's interesting that the Quran exposes those who deny or oppose it as being "hypocrites". The Quran is pretty spot on tb'h. A lot of the arguments against Islam are straight up lies or hypocritical sophistry.

Why would the Quran not refer to itself as the truth?
Should it call itself an alternative fact?
When a religion calls itself the truth, it's obvious that it considers non-believers hypocrites

>our religion says violence and rape is ok so at least we're not hypocrites :3

and then people look at me like I'm crazy when I say Islam is a satanic cult

What makes you think I'm European, or endorse the actions of colonialists?

Fun fact- that verse, 2:216, comes from a time when Mohamad was trying to talk his followers into raiding merchant caravans.

Yes, Islam is barbaric. Yes, ideological savagery and violence is barbaric. The violent removal of native peoples from most of the world was barbaric as well.

This kind of behavior leads men to reduce themselves to the level of animals. It's disgusting and degenerate in nature.
My home board is /k/, I'm fine with people using violence to defend themselves. The Qur'an advocates for way more than just defensive violence.

My point is that they actually ARE hypocrites. When Western liberals accuse Islam of war-mongering when they themselves belong to war-mongering and economicaly exploitative nations that's pure hypocrisy. There is a lot of hypocrisy vis a vis Islam from its critics. It's endemic.

Islam doesn't advocate violence for the spread of Islam. There is a verse saying there is no compulsion in religion. It can't forcibly use weapons to force people to convert to islam or die.

Western liberals don't criticize Islam lmao what the fuck are you on about?

Do you think it's alright for you to act like niggers and kill people who don't convert to your religion or give you their money just because you admit to being a nigger barbarian?

It's OK though, liberal religious dogma allows for hypocrisy, so they're not actually being hypocrites, and it's actually the Muslims who are hypocrites for not following a religion that allows hypocrisy.

Terrorism is wrong. But the west is at war with the middle east. Terrorist attacks happen for that reason. Do you seriously not expect any collateral damage?

These people think of themselves as authorities on Islam despite having no qualification. If they were sincere they would consult actual authorities first, but they don't care. When I wanted to learn about Christianity I attended Church, consulted a priest, and read their books. I'd like to see these hypocrites give the same courtesy to Islam, but it's unlikely it will ever happen.

modern conservatives still fall under the umbrella of "classical liberalism". They're two sides of the same coin.

Even if the bit about "muh no compulsion" WEREN'T abrogated (it is), Muslims are explicitly told to carry out violence against non-Muslims, including Christians and Jews, until they "submit". Whether that means "submission" as in conversion to Islam, or submission as in giving their money to Muslims, it's still offensive violence.
Because the only way to escape jizya is to become a Muslim, it is quite clearly designed to economically pressure, that is, compel, non-Muslims to convert by putting heavy taxes on their shoulders.

Illiterate

those verses talk about story, they're not a commandment, it talks about the war between the pagans and the muslims

The west is not at war with the middle east. The middle east is not a unified faction.

The west is at war with various kinds of salafist and wahabbist, as well as the Iranian-led shia and Ba'athists.

At the same time, the west is supporting other salafists and wahabbists, and arming them alongside monarchs and secular nationalists.

the west doesn't even really exist anyway, though. and the violent actions of government officials not voted on by the general public do not give "middle easterners" free license to kill random civilians.

which is exactly what Muslims do. Muslims never tried to assassinate John McCain, but they sure do love bombing and stabbing innocent bystanders, don't they?

Not that I would expect nigger barbarians to know the difference.

>The violent removal of native peoples from most of the world was barbaric as well.
I hope you're not fucking serious

The north african berbers converted to islam peacefully when trade began and arabs began buidling cities there, like qayrawan

Same thing for people of the caucasus and the steppes

Nigger I'm quoting your shitty book right fucking now. I never voted for any war, either.

>There is a verse saying there is no compulsion in religion.

The last 1400 years puts the lie to that, now, doesn't it. Convert or Die.

You should watch some imam apologist rage when they are asked what they would do to their son or daughter if they became a born again Christian.

No compulsion my ass.

I'm referencing the genocide and enslavement of native americans by Europeans.

Hubal is the Ba'al of the Moabites, not the Phoenicians. Hubal is Mohammad's father's family god, that his father was named after.

Hubal = HaBaal = the Ba'al of the Moabites.

I have yet to find something true that I will not believe.

Selective quotation is not a valid methodology for deriving Islamic law that has ever been recognized by an Islamic scholar. Ask an actual living Muslim scholar if you want to know what Islam is about. In fact, ask a few so you can get some variety of opinions. Maybe you'll start to appreciate just how complex a matter it is.

It's pure taqiyya. The OP is a hardcore muslim, likely getting paid to post on the internet to spread acceptance of his vicious religion.

Submission doesn't mean forcible conversion.
It also doesn't mean that you're forced to give your money.
Jizya tax is protection money. Living in muslim rule used to be a privilege and people had to pay for it unless they were muslims.
When you pay the jizya tax, you will be defended by muslims against people trying to kill you.

It cannot be more divergent.

Bible: Jesus is God, crucified, died on the cross, rose from the dead.

Quran: Jesus is not God, was not crucified, did not die, did not rise from the dead.

Oh, sorry, carry on

Men who will slit your throat if you do not believe them are not of "exemplary character".