There's the little point even trying to continue this conversation then. If you actually believe this you are a literal piece of shit and the worlds near-universal dislike of Muslims is more than justified.
Plagued Islamophiles / Regressive Left - Liberal non-Muslims who are desperate to protect the Religion of Peace
- Thread starter Cosmos
- Start date
-
We're mostly back to 100%. Expect more disruptions that will cause sister service outages for the forseeable future.
There's the little point even trying to continue this conversation then. If you actually believe this you are a literal piece of shit and the worlds near-universal dislike of Muslims is more than justified.
The Twelvers is probably second biggest sect in Islam and is like 90 percent of shiaism. Calling them crypto-pagans is a bit of a giant ass stretch as they believe in the main pillars of Islam like Muhammad is the last prophet and Allah is the only god. You sound like that you have disagreements with the Bidah concepts like taqiyya. Mainstream sunnis consider the Twelvers to be muslims. Also just to gauge where you stand, what is your view on Muta or temporary marriage?
@3119967d0c get your ass in here. I assume you a safavid twelver, defend your heritage or whatever.
Last edited:
Literally nothing has even come close to beating divine command theory, the best western thought's managed to come up with has been Stirnerism.
They devote acts of worship towards their imams claiming that it is so that they can intercede on their behalf, this closely resembles the practices of pagan Arabs. They further claim their imams have supernatural abilities and share God's attributes. The 'crypto-' refers to the fact that a central tenant of their beliefs is taqiyya (iirc Khomeni or some other prominent figure claimed it is half their religion) and they use it to hide these practices, they will never outright use terms like 'gods' etc to describe their imams but in practice that is what they are doing. Furhermore they claim the Qur'an was distorted by the ummayads so it's not even like they're really taking their religion from the same source.
Yeah but saying 'Allah is the only God' and acting like it are two different thing. As the saying goes, an atheist is half Muslim, they profess 'there is no God' all they need to add is 'but Allah'.
I have a problem with bid'ah but the problem with Twelvers is a systemic aqeeda problem, not merely a fiqh issue.
It's very explicitly forbidden.
Last edited:
They are disagreements between Sunni and Shia schools of thought and it has been viewed as different interpretations after the Battle of the Camel. The Shias primarily follow the bloodline of Ali and view him as the rightful first Caliph through the even of Ghadir.
The Imams are considered the descendants of the prophet but I will admit they do view them almost in the same fashion as the prophet.
However their practices are similar to the sufis as well. Sufis are much more flexible as well compared to other sects.
What about a moral system based mainly on a mixture of context, consequence, and intent, like the West generally uses? It can easily be argued to be far superior to notions of "rape is good because Allah says so".
So the imams are basically avatars/incarnations of Allah in Shia Islam? I'm pretty sure that can be reconciled pretty easily with basic Islamic monotheism.
When one considers that the Qur'an originally survived as oral tradition (remember the telephone game now) before being written down under the supervision of politically interested parties, the probability is vanishingly small that it wasn't distorted or tampered with, deliberately or otherwise.
That sounds incredibly disingenuous to the point of outright hilarity.
Mate, whatever the west is 'using' right now is an incoherent mess.
It can't, this sort of stuff was basically the entire point of Muhammed Ibn-Abdul Wahab's work which can be summarised in short as: that's what the pagan Arabs did but the Prophet (PBUH) opposed that because it was paganism. The entire point of Islam is absolute uncompromising monotheism.
The sheer number of people that had memorised it would have made that extremely difficult and the structure of the Qur'an is such that people can easily hear an error in it even without knowing Arabic. Playing a game of telephone doesn't work the same way because the entire point is that you don't have any redundancy in the network.
Yes, that's literally the entire point of the saying.
Sure but at the end of the day what I'm saying is that these differences are besides the point when we're talking about shias because they have far more serious issues that need to be confronted.
I'd say that's a major understatement.
I don't disagree, the practices of mainstream sufism have similar problems.
On another note @MrJokerRager you seem fairly familiar with Islamic discourse, I'm curious what your background is.
Are you talking about the leftists currently undergoing their "long march through the institutions"? Because they're in the process of getting flushed out.
>unironic literal Wahhabi
I don't remember ever reading that the pagan Arabs considered anyone in particular an avatar/incarnation of Allah, so that's another strike against you.
Do you honestly think that little "errors" can't build up over time (because human memory isn't perfect, and certainly not among large populations), with an oral tradition that has been transmitted among peoples who didn't have Arabic as their first language, to the point where entire populations are reciting entirely different versions of the same oral tradition? Politically and sectarian minded personalities can of course "persuade" people to "remember" different versions of what verses they once remembered.
Well I'm glad we can agree the saying is disingenuous then.
As others have said, it's pretty obvious the alliance between Islam and leftists is very much one of convenience and in America, it's mostly because the Woke Left is still operating on "Fuck You, Dad!" mode fueled memories of the Bush years.
Also, another thing to keep in mind is that Christianity is a lot stronger in the Americas than it is in Europe and the Islamic population is also much smaller too.
The only major Christian denomination that was fully cucked in the United States is probably the Episcopal Church and maybe the Lutherans. The Catholics are more unified and while the White American Catholics tend to lean more liberal, this is mainly because they're either just nominally Catholic or because they get compared to American Protestants who tend to be very right-wing sans the Episcopalians
In America, Christianity as a moral authority more or less self-destructed mainly because the fundamentalist wing of many Evangelical Protestant churches spectacularly shat the bed in the 90's and 2000's following a massive upswing in power back in the 80's.
The fact they got deep in bed with the neocons running the GOP at the time did not help matters and likely hastened the demise of the Religious Right once they stopped being useful after Bush left office.
The only large mainstream churches that are pro-LGBT and explicitly Christian in the United States are the Episcopal Church and one of the major Lutheran branches. Everything else are the smaller sects.
Unitarians aren't Christian at all and never claim to be but instead are more metaphysical and New Age, even if they use Christian trappings
I spent some time in Bahrain and read a couple of their teachings.
No I'm talking about all of it, I can't look at western society and say 'yes this is the coherent set of principles that guide their morals' because quite frankly there isn't really one, the majority of people are just unquestioningly running on the rotting foundations of judeo-Christian morality forced into a liberal humanist framework and every now and again another person comes along and tears a limb off of judeo-Christian morality proclaiming 'we are elevated intellectuals now we don't need this'.
The only reason leftism ever took hold was due to the things that came before it, leftism is just the natural progression. If they get flushed out now they will return unless society changes direction significantly. The things leftists are doing aren't new things, when society's decay and collapse they always end up parroting the sort of stuff the leftists do.
Firstly that's not what they believe, and secondly you've missed the entire point. The point is that they do these acts of worship towards their imams with the intention of gaining intercession and this is the excuse the pagan Arabs gave for what they did, it's not like the pagan Arabs didn't affirm God's absolute lordship, in fact they thought it was obvious.
Nope, see the way redundant networks work is that the more people memorise the thing the more defence you have against modification. Human memory isn't perfect but people seem to be able to memorise songs quite well don't they? Now imagine if a few hundred people were all learning the same songs for decades.
Last edited:
While Judeo-Christian frameworks inform contemporary Western morality, they aren't it's foundation. Or, at least, they are only a part of it's foundation.
Considering the successes of the West compared to the hellhole that is Wahhabist Saudi Arabia, I'm sure it's relatively fine that way.
The pagan Arabs prayed to their gods so that they could do things beyond just intercession. Hubal, for example, was a god of rain, war, divination, and the moon. Intercession seems to be a basic not particularly unique to pagan gods in Arabic thought, so it's a non sequitur to say that Shia imams and pagan gods are effectively equivalent, despite their otherwise dissimilar nature's, because of their supposed intercessory abilities.
In fact, historically, the power of intercession was given to the (false) prophet Muhammad himself.
Different versions (from ever-so-slight changes) would still come to pass, intentionally or not, irregardless of your "redundant network" buzzword spewing. It's the same reason the originally orated Epic of King Gesar has so many versions despite a multitude of memories supposedly being a "defense against modification" (a concept that is borderline nonsensical in and of itself, you could ever-so-slightly embellish an orated tradition in a way that pleases your audience and fits your own worldview more and nobody would even bat an eyelash).
Or is the Epic of King Gesar somehow fundamentally different from the Quran in the way humans memorize it?
As I said, judeo-Christian morality forced into a liberal humanist framework.
The west only has about a decade left on the clock as far as I'm concerned.
So? That's not to the exclusion of intercession.
It's not a non-sequitur because the problematic attribute that we are discussing is in fact identical. They do not need to be literally equivalent for them to be effectively equivalent, in the same way a leftist will not distinguish between the alt-right and neo-nazis, nor will a neocon distinguish between fascists, demsocs and tankies.
Here's one really basic difference: there was no concerted effort to ensure the reliability of the Epic of King Gesar as with the Qur'an. People did not spend years of their life reciting the Epic of King Gesar attaining perfect recitation.
Sounds disingenuous, but okay.
Thankfully, your opinions on the viability of civilizations doesn't mean much anything, considering that you're a Wahhabi. Although considering the West is the main buyer of Saudi oil, and frankly the reason the Saudis haven't already fallen apart yet, maybe you should get more worried about its supposed immanent collapse.
It is to the exclusion of the notion that intercession is somehow unique to pagan gods.
Intercessory ability is not in itself proof of pagan god status, or even equivalence to pagan god status. I legitimately don't understand how this could have slipped your mind beyond your disingenuity (if your political analogies are any indication).
Except they did. There are still bards trained to sing the Epic of King Gesar right now.
In fact, the roles should be reversed here. There wasn't any "concerted effort" to ensure the "relibility" of Quranic verses until the Caliphs literally forced such a thing into existence. Disconnected verses and fragments of the Quran were placed on any medium that was available. There are Hadiths that attest to a preexisting multiplicity of versions of various Quranic verses before the Quran was first put into a singular codex.
Last edited:
Why would I be worried? Oil has been the worst thing that has happened to the middle east in recent history and I'm not fond of the Saudis.
It is.
Yeah, how many? The fact you would even bring this up as if it were a valid comparison clearly indicates to me that you don't know the meaning of the things you called buzzwords earlier. There is a reason I used those specific terms.
Nonsense, the sahaba would teach classes.
Before? Those readings still exist and people still use them.
Then you should be worried the collapse of Wahhabi power in the interim, as the Saudis fund the Wahhabis.
No it isn't.
The reason you used those specific terms was to sound smart while you spew nonsense about early Islamic memories being some sort of automatic "fact checker" against changes and errors.
The Sahaba (of which there were more than 50 people, each with their own views, ideas, goals, interpretations, desires, etc) "teaching classes" doesn't disprove anything I just said.
I wasn't saying that those differing versions ceased to exist after the first Quranic codex, but it's nice to see you torpedoing your own argument about the supposed non-caliphal "concerted effort" to ensure Quranic "reliability" and "defend against modification" via strangely accurate and unchanging memories (hint: multiple Quranic readings wouldn't even exist if there was such an effort, because everyone would have come to the same standard).
DDBCAE CBAADCBE
kiwifarms.net
Riveting response. Truly a tour de force insightful dialog.
You're right, it was far more than he warranted. I should have just said "wrong" and left it at that.
Islam in the west is pretty self-perpetuating at this point, I really don't think this is as big a concern as you seem to think.
I'm really sorry the concept of scale is so far above your head.
You claimed there was no concerted effort, I pointed to a concerted effort, you then denied it was a concerted effort. Besides we literally have transcribed Qur'an fragments from 24 AH at the latest, I don't understand why you're bothering with this ridiculous line of reasoning.
The differences in the readings are not the emergent results of people's recitations. For all your random references to Islamic history you sure do seem to lack anymore than a surface level understanding.
Shifting the goalposts to "Islam in the west" in general, I see.
Considering the notion that you seem to think hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people across even early Islamic Arabia (let alone the lands Islam spread through via conquest) will actively "correct" even the slightest alterations to the Qur'anic recitation, memorization, or message, instead of just hearing something *good enough* and moving on, it's hilarious for you to discuss concepts of scale.
Because some randos who stood next to Muhammad at certain times teaching unspecified "classes" does not prove a pre-caliphal "concerted effort" in regards to literally anything.
The only ridiculous line of reasoning here is to argue that because some people wrote down/preserved a few portions of what would later become Surahs (those transcribed Qur'an fragments, such as the Birmingham manuscript* could themselves be variants, or contain variants of verses, even the slightest), then therefore there was a unified effort to ensure a singular Quranic standard even before the caliphs came in. It just doesn't follow.
At most, some of the more literate members of the early Islamic population endeavored to write down some of the verses they thought most important in a specific context, but that's it.
That is little more than a moronic and nonsensical cope based on nothing whatsoever.
Everything you've said right now is nothing but boilerplate Wahhabi apologetics that are so banal they defy description, so this "surface level understanding" talk is just projection.
*Then again, the dating of the Birmingham manuscript could potentially lie within Muhammad's childhood or even before his birth, which would open up some interesting questions. Here, I'm just going to assume that it was writing within or right after Muhammad's life.
I can't comment on the effect it might have elsewhere, I don't live there.
Firstly I'm not sure what you mean by 'pre-caliphal', the first caliph took power the same year the Prophet (PBUH) died, there is no 'pre-caliphal' period, unless you've mistakenly referred to the Rashidun period as 'pre-caliphal' or something?
Secondly these aren't randos I'm referring to these are people like Mu‘aadh ibn Jabal, Saalim the freed slave of Abu Hudhayfah, Abdullah ibn ‘Umar ibn al-Khattaab and Uqbah ibn ‘Aamir to name a very small number of them who literally learned the Qur'an in its entirety directly from the Prophet (PBUH) himself. There are in fact too many for me to list despite being charitable and restricting myself only to those who were taught directly without contribution from other sahabi and furthermore it is well known that the sahabi would teach one another and yes they did literally actively correct each other's recitation.
You've completely misunderstood my point. What I'm saying is that your argument begins fails even before getting to the point where there's a need to begin discussing the potential for corruption from oral narration.
I'm really trying to avoid gish galloping you but you're making it very difficult, here's an article, if you want these details explained simply I can do that for you: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qira'at
The fact you'd even entertain this is ridiculous. Would you like me to walk you through the reasoning behind that too or can you do it on your own?
Similar threads
The Unofficial ContraPoints Dickriders Club and the culture / drama surrounding the community.
The anti-fascist gang with fascist tendencies
