Youtube comments of Let's Talk Religion (@LetsTalkReligion).
-
1800
-
1100
-
980
-
817
-
721
-
681
-
653
-
586
-
577
-
567
-
487
-
472
-
449
-
440
-
411
-
408
-
400
-
393
-
387
-
337
-
301
-
298
-
261
-
260
-
257
-
249
-
243
-
239
-
211
-
205
-
204
-
201
-
194
-
193
-
184
-
184
-
159
-
154
-
154
-
152
-
151
-
147
-
145
-
142
-
136
-
133
-
131
-
131
-
129
-
127
-
126
-
125
-
125
-
124
-
122
-
118
-
118
-
118
-
117
-
116
-
115
-
113
-
106
-
105
-
104
-
104
-
103
-
103
-
103
-
103
-
103
-
102
-
99
-
98
-
97
-
95
-
95
-
95
-
93
-
92
-
91
-
91
-
90
-
90
-
87
-
87
-
86
-
85
-
85
-
85
-
84
-
82
-
80
-
78
-
77
-
76
-
Hi! I am very flattered by what you say, and I'm happy that's the way I come across.
I would say there is nothing fundamentally wrong about your idea. But it is primarily a theological theory, which is hard to prove or disprove.
There are many similarities between religions, and therefore there are certainly arguments to be made like the one you propose.
But we shouldn't forget that religions are often very different sometimes as well, and for various reasons.
I love to discuss the subject of how religions began and was then changed by its early followers, which is natural because of how human beings work.
So it's a decent hypothesis, but it also has some flaws. For example, when it comes to Islam which you use as an example, (And I don't mean to disregard or discredit the religion in any way) the theological claim is that Islam is the original Abrahamic/Mosaic religion which had been corrupted by later followers of Judaism and Christianity.
However, when we compare them, we find that (according to our historical knowledge as of today) Islam has/had more elements similar to late antique/talmudic judaism (that was around by the time of Prophet Muhammad) than with the earliest forms of Judaism that we know of. This could be a counter-argument to the idea that you, and many others, present.
But I wouldn't say it disproves it at all, we still need more research on that subject and I think your position is perfectly plausible.
75
-
74
-
73
-
72
-
72
-
70
-
70
-
70
-
70
-
69
-
69
-
67
-
64
-
63
-
63
-
62
-
62
-
61
-
61
-
61
-
59
-
59
-
58
-
58
-
58
-
58
-
57
-
57
-
55
-
54
-
54
-
53
-
53
-
53
-
53
-
53
-
52
-
52
-
51
-
51
-
50
-
50
-
50
-
50
-
50
-
49
-
49
-
49
-
49
-
48
-
47
-
47
-
46
-
45
-
45
-
44
-
44
-
44
-
43
-
43
-
43
-
42
-
42
-
42
-
42
-
42
-
42
-
42
-
42
-
41
-
41
-
41
-
41
-
41
-
40
-
40
-
40
-
40
-
39
-
38
-
38
-
38
-
37
-
37
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
34
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
32
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
30
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
 @muhammadbenjuraij7734 I generally don't read or reply to comments unless they are posted within the first 24 hours of a new video release. I also have a rule of never deleting comments as long as they aren't threatening or personal attacks.
Youtube sometimes marks very long comments as spam, so if you have experienced your comments disappearing, that might be why.
To reply to your comment, you are making a lot of assumptions about me based on a short video (or perhaps a few different ones?). One thing that would be beneficial for you is to distinguish between me talking about what others say vs. stating my personal opinions on matters.
You also assume that I don't already know all the things and arguments you present. It would be very strange for me to not be aware of all of those aspects when I've studied Islamic history for the better part of a decade.
The simple answer is that we are approaching things from different perspectives. You view this question from a confessional perspective, relying on traditional Islamic accounts and versions of events, often based on Hadith sources and other early Islamic literature. In the academic world, we have a different approach. The isnads of 'Ulum al-hadith is an impressive accomplishment that is seen as enough for the traditional accounts within the Islamic tradition, but as academics of the critical historical method, we use other methods and have other criteria for what is considered trustworthy or authentic enough to include. This sometimes results in different perspectives on certain historical events or developments.
There isn't really anymore to say on this topic, especially not in a YouTube comment. We come from different approaches to the subject in question and as a result we have different perspectives on it. None of us are probably going to convince the other. Although I'm not sure we necessarily disagree on all that much.
Thanks for the comment, although I prefer not to have debates in Youtube comment sections! I hope you have a nice day and I wish you and yours all the best.
Regards,
Filip
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
So I'm not Hindu, but Vishnu is the Supreme deity, especially in Vaishnavism. There are different schools of thought and traditions in Hinduism, but they all conceive of a Supreme Divine force. It is sometimes referred to as Brahman (especially in Vedanta), at other times it can be referred to as Shiva (in Shaivism) as well as many other names. The gods are usually considered different aspects or manifestations of that Supreme God. You might be able to think of it as similar to Gods Attributes/Names in Islam. God is the Merciful, he is also the Wrathful, the Loving etc. All the names indicate a single God but denote different aspects or attributes (understood differently depending on which school of Islam). The Hindu gods, according to many interpretations, fucntion in the same way. They are all Brahman, but represent different expressions of that Divine; different ways that the Divine interacts with the world.
Then there are different traditions that highlight different deities as the Supreme "form" or expression of the Brahman. So the Vaishnavas see Vishnu as the Supreme deity, for the Shaivites it is Shiva and so on.
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
"@ Are you suggesting the musical system of the "Islamic world" came from Makka and Madina?"
No. I'm claiming that there were musicians in Mecca and Medina.
"@ I am surprised really by the orientalist. When they talk about the influence of other cultures on Islam, they say "so on". "Mesopotamia, Persia, and so on" or "music from Persia and other regions"
I don't quite understand your point here? If you feel like I'm excluding Persia, Persia is the region I DON'T say "and so on.." about? What's the issue here? It's simply a linguistic way of not having to list every single detailed that impacted music culture, which would be impossible.
"@ If pre-Islamic music were to be prohibited, then all the instruments, musical theory, and musical systems are to be prohibited. Thanks for confirming my position."
The graph shows that pre-Islamic music was NOT prohibited, at least not always.
In general, I find it strange that you feel like I didn't give credit to the Persian music tradition. Most of the people I talk about in the video has Persian origins. The Mawsili family were Persian, al-Farabi may have been Persian, Ibn Sina was Persian, al-Urmawi was Persian. If anything, I emphasize in the video how important the Persian music tradition was to the development of music in the Islamic world. However, I also make a point to talk about how that isn't the whole story.
What you present is a very classic Persian-centric version of history. I'm not here to discredit the contributions of the Persians, quite the opposite. But you also claim certain things in your comment which is highly historically problematic and sometimes just wrong.
You keep claiming that anything you deem positive (Golden Age, music, poetry, Sufism) is "not part of Islam", then you make assumptions about Quranic verses and Hadith without taking into account the historical realities and different interpretations of those scriptures. Instead, you base it on your own interpretation of those texts and make generalizing claims as a result.
The musical system was developed by the individuals that I talk about in the video for the most part. Many of them were Persian, others were Arab. The system doesn't belong to Persians exclusively nor does it belong to Arabs or Turks. It is the result of a joint effort in a multicultural environment. I think it is a huge mistake to anachronistically divide things into "Persian music" and "Arab music" in the way that you do, especially when talking about this period in history. Certainly there were regional differences, but this was very much seen as one civilization.The Oud originates in Persia as the Barbat but continued to change under influence of other cultures. Many of the scales have Persian names, as you mention, but other Maqams have Arabic names.
The Persians had a much more developed music culture than the Arabs did by the time of the Arab conquests. So naturally Persian influence is monumental, but to say things like "Arab music was just a small part of Persian music" is incredibly biased and presents a problematic view of history.
Also I talk about the Maqam system as Arabic in the video because Persians have their own system called Dastgah, which is very similar but still has differences and I didn't want to simply equate the two.
Thanks for complementing my English :)
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
My goodness, this has to be the best Youtube comment I've ever seen. I appreciate the kind words at the end, and I am not offended in any way. Quite the contrary actually, part of the reason why I make these videos is to open up discussions. You make some excellent points and I think we are in agreement for the most part; the point I was trying to make in the video was precisely your point that "no living scholar can rightly represent the ideology except as a flavor, or interpretation of the originator" and that this includes those scholars that represent what we would understand as "orthodoxy". My personal starting point is that religions are ultimately social constructs (without necessarily negating the validity of their teachings) and that, as you pointed out, in the case of Islam only Muhammad can truly know what he himself actually meant and any later attempts to understand what "Islam" is comes down to the interpretations of human beings.
The Isma'ilis felt like a good example (plus, I really wanted to make a video about them in any case) to show that an extreme minority group with wildly different opinions on some points are still based on (at least some) of the same sources, in this case the Qu'ran and the Prophet Muhammad, and to make the point that none of the different interpretations of those sources can claim with certainty to represent the original intent. That isn't to say that some interpretations may not be more closely aligned to this original intent, but there is no way of knowing for sure and therefore extreme generalizations should always be avoided. It is not a total critique of describing a religion by a certain set of beliefs or practices, indeed very few (if any) Muslims would disagree with the shahada for example, but I was trying to open up for a bit more nuanced and open discussion regarding representation and state my opinion that it is dangerous to make generalizations that don't keep this in mind.
I hope I didn't misunderstand your points, feel free to correct me if so :)
15
-
15
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
All of these concerns are already covered by the argument.
1. You already assume what we are looking for has to be a "supernatural Being", whatever that means. But Ibn Sina doesn't assume that, he is only interested in the reality of a Necessary Existence. If the universe itself was necessary, or a fundamental aspect of the universe is necessary, then congratulations, you have found the Necessary Existence. But if you watch the video again, he already argues for why the universe (as the full set of congingents) can't be necessary in itself. If you wanted to argue that the "fundamental aspect of the universe" is Being or Existence itself, then Ibn Sina seems to lean in that direction, and later Islamic philosophers and mystics would directly identify the Necessary Being with Being/Existence as such.
2. You assume that contingency here only means temporal contingency and causation, which it doens't. And he covers his argument for why infinite regress is unlikely.
3. It interacts with the world through being its originating and sustaining source.
As for the second question, he again very clearly argues for why it must be one. If necessity itself is the only feature, then they would be identical, hence one and the same.
4. Again, you assume a specific steretypical theology about what "God" is supposed to mean and forcibly project it onto Ibn Sina's argument, when he wasn't really interested in that (at least for this part of the argument). His view of God is decidedly "impersonal", and he defines God precicely as that Being which is Necessary, however that Necessary Being turns out to be. He also just happens to argue that its features align with the basics of Islamic theology, that it is One, Transcendent & beyond any similarity to anything in the created world.
If you want to understand Ibn Sina's philosophy and theology better, I recomend watching my full video on him (of which this video is just a part).
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
 @m-Parsa If that's what you believe Ibn Sina means by miracle, then you clearly haven't read his works.
Here's a relevant section from the Shifa':
"When this man's (the prophet) existence comes about, he must lay down laws about men's affairs by the permission of God, exalted be He, by His command, inspiration and 'the descent of the Holy Spirit' on him [Qur'an 16:102]. The first principle governing his legislation is to let them know that they have a Maker, One and Omnipotent; that 'He knows the hidden and the manifest' [Qur'an 16:19]; that obedience to His command is His due, for 'command must belong to Him who creates' [Qur'an 7:54'; that He has prepared for those who obey Him and aferlife of bliss, but, for those who disobey Him, an afterlife of misery, that that the multitude will hear and obey the decrees put in the prophet's mouth by God and the angels." (Metaphysics, Book 10, Chapter 2)
This is just one example, really the whole of Book 10 of the Metaphysics part of the Shifa' elaborates on this topic, if you want to explore it further. And it makes it very clear that he is doing quite the opposite of "dismissing religion".
The Arabic text is also widely available if you want to look into it, and the above translation is very straightforward and true to the original, having compared them.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
 @sheesmustafa9522 Well there are always going to to be questions, despite the words of a "main preacher" or central text. For example, the question immediately appears that "How do we know Muhammad said that?", is it in a Hadith? Well some Muslims may not accept the validity of that specific Hadith based on chain of transmitters (we see this in Sunni/shia Hadith differences for example). So for those who don't accept it, the words are not binding. But even for those who accept it there always appear other differences.
What did he mean by "killing a person"? Does that include in a war? In self-defense? Maybe he is talking about a specific context? Then it might be okay to kill a person if the action is justified, and who makes the decision when that action would be justified? Is he talking about all people or only other Muslims?
And all these questions will be answered differently by different people. Everyone will think that they are following the "pure" teachings, but in conceiving of this "pure" version that are themselves deciding what that "pure" version is. So even when we have a preserved text, like the Qu'ran for example, the words never really speak for themselves. When we read any text, the reading him/herself is always participating in the text, projecting his/her own self onto it and creating their own understandings based on that.
So there is really no escaping this problem. Subjectivity will always be the filter through which we perceive the world. The question then becomes, how do we deal with that? And how do we talk about/understand religion with all of this in mind?
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
That depends on what topic one is discussing. If we are exploring Islamic theology, the religion of Islam as such or Arabia in the 7th century, then the Qur'an and, to some extent, the hadiths are very relevant sources.
But when discussing what people in the 10th century write about, say, Alchemy - topics that aren't, on the surface, discussed in the Qur'an - those sources don't really make sense to rely on in any primary way. The only reason one would want to do that would be in order to make a normative argument - for instance, talking about whether such practices are "part of Islam" or allowed in the religion. But none of those questions are relevant here. We explore what people have believed and taught, not whether those teachings are true or not. Again, the Qur'an can serve as a very relevant part of the wider context, and indeed the Qur'an comes up as an important part of "magical" practice in general. And in that sense it is definitely relevant. But as a direct source for studying topics of Occult science in the Middle east, it doesn't really make all that much sense to use it, other than from a confessional or normative perspective.
5
-
5
-
 @AliImran-nr8mc Well, while the Quran was primarily oral, manuscripts are still significant as the written texts were based on memorized recitals. In other words, if there are differences between early manuscripts, this means there were differences in how it was remembered and recited.
And thousands of Muslims have memorized and recite it today, but this obviously wasn't the case at the time of the prophet. At that time there were far less people who had memorized the verses, and in my opinion most likely no one had memorized the "entire" Qu'ran, as I don't believe it was originally meant as a determined volume.
I am of the opinion that then we read the Qu'ran we are more or less hearing the words that came out of Muhammad's mouth in an impressively unaltered way, but that the idea of the Qu'ran as a fixed volume (as a "book") comes about in the generations after his death.
There is fascinating new research being done thet suggest that the Qu'ran sees itself not as a "book" in the traditional sense, but piecemeal recitations intimately connected to the Prophet himself and the context of the recital. Thus, compiling the Qur'an into a book (again, I don't mean putting it onto a page but the process of viewing it as having a beginning and end, certain chapters or that it is "complete") would from this perspective defeat the purpose in a way.
Don't know if any of this is necessarily true, but we are still discovering new things about the Quran, much of which confirms the traditional Muslim viewpoint. But also certain things can could possibly challenge it (albeit in small ways). I don't have any of the answers, but we shouldn't see it as a closed debate.
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
I am not one to hide the fact that I don't have access to any of the Bab's own writings. As you probably know, there is only one translated volume ("Selections from the writings of The Bab") which I believe was published by Baha'is anyway?
I am pretty open about the fact that most of my sources are from Baha'is themselves, as most books/studies on the religion are by Baha'is.This is in fact a problem when it comes to studying the subject, and something I do bring up in Part 2 which comes out next week.
So I am only going by the sources I have and thus the information is open for discussion. Naturally my narrative of the story will have a slight Baha'i leaning with the above facts in mind, and I try my best to avoid this as much as possible.
I don't think a public debate is appropriate for this, as I do not consider myself an expert or scholar on the Baha'i faith in particular. Neither am I a Baha'i myself. For this reason, I have no wish to defend a faith I don't subscribe to, nor do I have the sufficient knowledge to do so.
However, if you want to make a podcast or otherwise that presents arguments against what I describe here, I would highly encourage that. I think having a civil discussion on the matter is important, and if what you claim is true, that would be a significant and valuable point in this whole debate. I am open to all criticism.
Just know that I am not personally invested in the question. I have no horse in this race, so to speak. I just try to convey information through videos in as good a way as possible.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
1. While any statement such as this will be generalizing, there were certainly 'traditionalists' who upheld a deterministic position. This was a very common position to hold in the early muslim community, in fact.
It seems that you are projecting later understandings and systematizations onto an earlier period, where one often want to justify various positions as "really saying the same thing", when in reality there is a huge diversity of opinions on things, even between people like Malik Ibn Anas and Shaf'i or Ahmad Ibn Hanbal.
2. There are always nuances to these questions, but by most measures the traditionalists would indeed count as literalists. Not always in the sense of denying any presence of allegory in the Qu'ran, but in the general attitude that human reason should never be employed to understand scripture. And this is certainly the position that the traditionalists took, they argued that the word of the Qu'ran should be accepted without questioning what it means through reason, and this definitely counts as a form of literalism...
3&4. ...which is also why Ahmad Ibn Hanbal and the traditionalist movement was considered "extreme". He argued that there was no place for human reasoning in understanding theology, he rejected Kalam and speculative theology altogether, and this position was untenable for most people, which is why the Ash'ari compromise became a lot more successful. In this "literalism" or rejection of reason (which spans both theology and fiqh) he does indeed differ from some of his predecessors, especially imam Malik. To say that they hold the same opinions on some of these matters is simply naive and a projection of later syncretism onto a much more varied early period of development.
As for anthropomorphism, that is a similar debate to the one about 'literalism'. While even the traditionalists wouldn't perhaps hold that God was like a creature, they definitely supported anthropomorphic descriptions about God. When reading the Qu'ran, they 'accepted what scripture said without asking why', which is not the same as affirming that God has a physical face or hand of course, but according to many people (their critics especially) that still counts as anthropomorphism, or at least a cop-out excuse hiding an anthropomorphism. Some of the traditionalists compiled collections of very anthropomorphic Hadith to stand in contrast to the Mu'tazilah. Even Ahmad Ibn Hanbal himself described God as having a "form" (although I've lost track of the source for this so I'll reserve this point as possibly mistaken).
Some of this comes down to semantics and how we define our terms, but according to many definitions, the traditionalists could definitely be considered both literalist and somewhat anthropomorphist. But at the same time, there is of course room for a lot of nuance and debate regarding this.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
To Ibn 'Arabi, everything in creation is essentially, inherently good, because everything was created by his Mercy.
So that's why I asked the question. Most things we consider "ugly" are only so based on our egos and our understanding or perpective on the world through that ego. Death is only ugly from the perspective of an ego that sees itself as a particular being that will die, and sees that as a problem. And we can say this about most things we dislike about the world.
At the same time, Ibn 'Arabi affirms that there is evil in the world. That is a common misunderstanding about him. But to him, evil is the absense of Being/God, it is literally nonexistence. Just like darkness is simply the absense of light, so evil in the world is the absense of God/Being.
So even though everything that IS, is a reflection of God's attributes, and all things are thus inherently good and beautiful, those things can become "infected" or obscured by the darkness of nonexistence, which is what leads to evil in the world, such as ego or murder and such things.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
Thanks!
1. Yes, it is (ideally) always a mentor-student based transmission.
2. In what way do you mean exactly?
3. It is not necessarily true that the Naqshbandiyya generally rejects Wahdat al-Wujud. Ahmad Sirhindi was critical of it, but not all follow in his footsteps. For example, one of the most famous followers of Ibn Arabi's school and a huge proponent for Wahday al-Wujud - Abdurrahman Jami - was a Naqshbandi master.
No one tariqa has a kind of all-encompassing theological position or stance towards Wahdat al-wujud, but it has been a very important and prominent teaching in a lot of them - the Chishtiyya, Qadiriyya, Nimatullahiyya, Bektashiyya, Jelvetiyya - just to mention a few.
4. Yes, this almost always happenes. Islam in one part of the world always looks different from another. And sufism, as you point out, has often been more open to adapting and appropriating local customs and giving them Islamic clothing.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
Well, it must be kept in mind that when those words are used, it is always meant as a metaphor. Wordly love between human beings is not the same as divine love (other than, at best, being a "taste" of it).
It's also important to keep in mind that I am generalizing a bit when I talk about those words and how they are used. Words can have many meanings and it all depends on how they are used and in what context.
By these Sufis, worldly love is only a mirroring of divind love, and the erotic imagery is only used symbolically, much like when Sufi poets talk about wine and intoxication.
Ibn 'Arabi, in the Fusus al-Hikam, talks about how the most pure way of experincing God is through a woman, because the longing and union of two lovers on earth can elevate the soul as a mirroring of a "similar" experiental relationship with God. This would be seen by some, as you said, as blasphemous but it was also accepted by others.
There was actually a debate about the use of the word "ishq" to describe the relationship with God, and many scholars saw it as inappropriate as it has erotic connatations. So it has definitely been a controversial topic
I also agree that mant translations are questionable. In particular translations of Rumi. Therefore I am also very careful about which translators I trust and use in my research. In this video I talk primarily about poems and writings in Arabic, which I can read and understand to a certain degree, so I sometimes also cross-check the original to see if I fins the translation problematic.
I don't speak persian, so when it comes to Persian poetry that's more difficult for me.
Of course, I like to have a dialogue with you here. Since you come from a Sufi family your opinion and points are very valuable as they come from within the tradition I talk about and thus it has to be taken into account. After all, I'm only a scholar, and rely on information by others like everyone else. It would be foolish of me to think I have all the answers or that I definitely have the right interpretation. But I hope I've managed to explain a bit more what I mean in the video and why there may be misunderstandings :)
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
 @virferind7946 You cannot have a textually based essentializing either, because there is no such thing as a text without people interpreting that text. That's the nature of hermeneutics. The Sufis read the same texts as the Salafis, they both justify their practices and ideas based on the same scripture. If we try to define a "standard" version of a religion based on scripture, we have to do so based on our own particular reading of scripture, in which case we end up right back in subjective territory.
You seem to hold the opinion that Sufism is somehow contrary to Islamic principles (at least in some ways). This already pre-conceived notion leads you to read scripture in a certain way that supports your claim.
Whereas if you asked Ibn 'Arabi, or Rumi, they would claim that the Qur'an and Hadith point directly to their philosphical standpoints. As academic, neutral observers of religious phenomena, we cannot make definitive statements about a "standard" version of a religion in that way, because there is no way of escaping that discussion becoming tied down by our subjective readings and biases. We can only observe and analyse what people following those religions say about them, and how they understand them, without making any validating or neglecting comments about it.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
"When this man's (the prophet) existence comes about, he must lay down laws about men's affairs by the permission of God, exalted be He, by His command, inspiration and 'the descent of the Holy Spirit' on him [Qur'an 16:102]. The first principle governing his legislation is to let them know that they have a Maker, One and Omnipotent; that 'He knows the hidden and the manifest' [Qur'an 16:19]; that obedience to His command is His due, for 'command must belong to Him who creates' [Qur'an 7:54'; that He has prepared for those who obey Him and aferlife of bliss, but, for those who disobey Him, an afterlife of misery, that that the multitude will hear and obey the decrees put in the prophet's mouth by God and the angels." - Ibn Sina (Kitab al-Shifa', Metaphysics, Book 10, Chapter 2)
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
 @patronescobar123 Sure, that might be true, but my mind went to tea first because coffee seemed like such a far off possibility.
It is widely agreed by historians, basically without any hesitation, that both coffee and tea come about later:
1. Tea existed in China in the 9th century, but only in the form of green tea. Even then, the green tea would not have been brewed but cooked like a soup, and was thus a very different thing. Black tea, which is widely drunk in the Middle East, wasn't invented until the 17th century.
2. Coffee started being brewed for the first time in Yemen in the 15th century, and was used by Sufis in their dhikr sessions. It took another few centuries for coffee to spread to the rest of the middle east as a regular drink that people consumed.
So neither coffee nor tea existed at the time when this game takes place. The drink in the trailer is thus either a third option (such as some herbal tea, as I mentioned) or simply a historical inaccuracy by the people who made it.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
 @alij9167 Wasit was literally founded as a colony for Arabic migrants in the early Islamic period. It was entirely Arabic in language (and culture). This is widely attested and accepted. As a single example, here is a section from Massignon's book:
"This was the case of Wasit, an Arab colony on Aramaen land, founded in
85/704 by the Umayyad governor Hajjaj: located "midway" (whence its name) a parasang to the west of Dayr Hizqal (convent of the "resurrection" of Ezekial), equidistant (= forty parasangs) from Mada'in, Kufa, Basra, and Suq al-Ahwaz; on the right bank of the Tigris, opposite ancient Kashkar, chief town of an extremely fertile flooded district, Shadhsabur (divided into four fiscal tussuj: Kashkar, Zandaward, Badhbun, Jawazir): comprising, in the north toward Baghdad, the small market towns of Fam al-Silh, Nahr Sabus, and Madharaya; in the east toward Ahwaz, al-Tib and Qurqub; in the west, toward Kufa (via Junbula-Tallfakhkhar), Nahraban (= Najraniya, colony of Harithi
Christians, successors of the Hamra Daylam Iranians); in the south, toward
Basra, Faruth. In the countryside, alongside the Aramaean peasantry, there
were some Arab tribes, of Bakr (B. Dhuhl-b-Shayban) and of Qays ('Abs, B.
Rifa'a), stirred up in the period by some Shi'ite revolutionary movements (es-
pecially in Junbula). In the town itself, the Arab majority (with some clients of the Azd tribe and some Turks brought from Bukhara) was violently Sunnite, pro-Umayyad, and Hanbalite; and its Jamie mosque was the center of a qurra' school ( = reciters of the Qur' an) and of a hadith school."
"We should keep in mind that it is in Wasit, in a purely Arabic milieu, that Hallaj received his first religious formation, a strictly Sunnite formation, among Hanbalite traditionists. It is Wasit that explains Hallaj's curious lack of familiarity with discussion in a Persian dialect, as is evident later from an incident in Isfahan."
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Thank you very much. Yes, Ibn Arabi seem to draw from a lot of souces - Ashari, Falsafa, Mu'tazilah, Ismailism etc - but still manages to be very original at the same time.
Ibn Arabis "philosophical" language is of course highly influensed by Ibn Sina - in particular his ideas about Wujud. So he does take from Ibn Sina, but Ibn Arabi also goes a lot further. He isn't just retelling the argument of Ibn Sina. He makes a more radical claim about Wujud, making it the only reality, rather than the only necessary reality.
I've made some videos where Shiism comes up, but will definitely do more in the future. I don't know if I agree that Sufism/Irfan (as the shiites like to call it) is more integrsted into Shiism. The aspects of Sunnism - Kalam, Fiq, Sufism - was rarely seen as separted or in conflict, but as important complementary parts of a whole.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
 @solidimpact5871 My point is, everyone projects their own beliefs onto religions. There is no such thing as a religion existing outside of you or me that is independent of our interaction with it. You may feel like you have a good idea about what the Prophet or the sahaba did or what the Quran say, but the truth is that there is no way to read anything without projecting ourselves onto it and fitting it into our worldview. I do it, you do it, Ibn Arabi does it.
Truth of the matter is, Ibn Arabi and any other Sufi reads the exact same Qu'ran that you do, they follow the exact same prophet(s) that you do, and whereas your reading of those sources tells you that Sufism is foreign to it, they read the exact same sources as saying that Sufism is the only true Islam. And what else do any of us have to tell us that WE are right other than our belief in it?
I am not a Sufi, nor am I a Muslim, so I don't have a stake in who is right or wrong here. But I do care about intellectual honesty and opening the boundries of our limited, personal understandings about subjects lile this.
I don't mean any offense, but this is important to me.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1