1. Muslims pride themselves on their conception of the covenant being always, immutable, black and white, with unchangeable laws of absolute morality. Now Mohammed is presented as the paragon of Islam, but he had thirteen wives, whereas Islam permits only four. Every Islamic rationalization I've seen of this uses consequentialist ethics.
2, The idea of the sacrificial victim being Ishmael instead of Isaac makes no sense. Isaac is Abraham's legitimate son, therefore a greater sacrifice. Isaac's faith is key here too, since it is his descendants which end up being given the covenant and producing all the prophets before Mohammed. Ishmael is father of the Arabs, and it seems to me that the only plausible reason to say he was the sacrifice is to accentuate the importance of the Arabs at the expense of the Jews.
cont
>>820784
3. When Christ asked to be forgiven in the Garden of Gethsemane, he said for it to be in the Father's will, not his will. Showing that he deferred to the Father. In Islam, the Father deferred to him, and saved him. This seems inappropriate.
4. Though more reasonable Muslims don't consider all artistic depiction to be wrong, most who are serious still think it is wrong to depict Mohammed. This grants enormous prestige to Mohammed in a way that is close to deifying him, since it is suggesting any depiction of him would be an idol, as if one were depicting God himself.
5. All Muslims besides Quranists place values on Hadiths, but they widely disagree on which Hadiths are valid. This is a serious issue because Hadiths give moral imperatives, which means that if you don't take particular ones as valid which are, you are disobeying moral injunctions. Now either moral injunctions came from God, or they did not. If they did, then it is a serious flaw that there was not system to determine which are valid left behind by Mohammad (since they weren't actually committed to writing long after his time), such as Ecumenical Councils. And if they are not from God, then they are completely optional, making Quaranists objectively right.
FINIS
>>820784
Didn't read. If you're a christfaggotard you have no right to criticize Islam as you all stem from Abraham flacid, circumcised penis.
>>820784
>Hating on Muslims when orthodox
>Not knowing the problem is other sects
We have an agreement Akhi.
>>820935
Fuck off
>>820784
>An Orthodox critique of Islam
Literally no one cares
>>820784
>>820786
When did Christfags become the new fedora tippers?
>>820992
Why would I blaspheme against Abraham if I were a Muslim? You are a (pre-)Muslim. Christianity was Islam before Islam was cool.
>>820998
When New Atheists became fellow travelers with Muslims and Communists.
>>820999
If you think that Christians actually base their faith on a claim to ethnic identity with anyone Abrahamic, you need to read a book.
Orthodox are by definition either Turkish or Tatar rape babies. Stop saying bad things about your Muslim fathers!
Oh and by the way Christians claim of the seed of Abraham, that is from the semen of Abraham. You heard it folks, they have artifially inseminated themselves with the ejactulations of Abraham's sore, smelly sandnigger penis.
>>820944
Just because I critique Islam doesn't mean I'm hating on Muslims, especially if they're Shiites.
>>821007
1. Religion =/= race
2. You're factually incorrect
The Orthoposter on /his/ is British, I think
You can't make this shit up. It is a point of pride to Christ-cuck-tards to accept the semen of another man into their own manginas.
>>820784
>the orthodox opinion of x
>y from an orthodox point of view
>a critique of z according to the orthodox
Why do you always do this, constantine? No one cares about your byzantiboo worldview.
>>821102
t. Alberto Barbacoa
>>820784
Disclaimer: I am not Muslim.
1. Mohammad was essentially a tribal leader. His marriages were either diplomatic or to prove a point.
2.I agree
3.Because in Islam, Jesus is a mere prophet and nothing more.
4. Muslims believe that depictions of Mohammad are forbidden because the visual depiction of Jesus led to Christians worshipping Jesus, which they were not supposed to.
5.Hadith scholars agree with you. And also, most agree that if a hadith outrightly contradicts the Quran then it's wrong, but the interpretations of the Quran differ so which opinions on which hadiths are Sahih also differ.
>>820784
>Muslims pride themselves on their conception of the covenant being always, immutable, black and white, with unchangeable laws of absolute morality.
Yeah that's not true. And the Qur'an allows the Prophet only to have had more than 4 at a time because of his special character and position (the condition of having more than one wife being that one is able to provide for and love equally, and/or to protect and give shelter to a woman that is socially isolated, which is specifically an injunction against the pagan practice of the rich being able to have an infinite number of wives that have no rights beside what's allowed by their husbands [and keep in mind that Islam permits divorce]). But if you're against plural marriage there's really nothing to say that'll make it "right".
>The idea of the sacrificial victim being Ishmael instead of Isaac makes no sense.
Although tradition points to Ishmael being the one in question, the Qur'an actually doesn't name the son, and it's been argued by Muslim theologians that the child in question is Isaac. That said, It's been argued that the points of this is that actual identity of the son is irrelevant, but at any rate it makes just as much sense: Ishmael is Abraham's first born son, regardless of (pagan) notions about "legitimacy". In this regard, Ishmael is a miracle and especially representative of God's power and benevolence. In this sense, he also represents God's creation, in how it is miraculously created and sustained. And just as God gives harvest, he also takes away, and mankind is supposed to offer back to God a sacrifice in thanks for what he's given. As God's first great gift to Abraham, he should also be his first great sacrifice - but of course, the sacrifice is cancelled, because God is not like the pagans think and doesn't desire that kind of sacrifice, only the faith behind it.
>>821142
>1. Mohammad was essentially a tribal leader. His marriages were either diplomatic or to prove a point.
So can Muslims drink to be "diplomatic"?
Jesus is the Messiah in Islam
Christians thought Christ was God long before there were physical depictions of him, No, in this case, Islam's prohibition of physical depictions of Mohammed imply divinity.
>>821142
>the visual depiction of Jesus led to Christians worshipping Jesus
Wut. That's assbackwards.
>>821146
Ishmael being the father of the Arabs is important though, and it's more than a little interesting that this miraculous child and prophet's lineage would be so "forgotten" by God, especially when He promises to "make [Ishmael] a great nation". Recall that Abraham did not want to send them out and only allows Hagar and Ishmael to leave exactly because God /tells/ Abraham to do so. Certainly interesting.
>In Islam, the Father deferred to him, and saved him. This seems inappropriate.
Not sure what you're referring to in saying he "deffered to him", but I assume you mean the idea that the Christ was not sacrificed but was saved by God. For Muslims, God is deeply caring for his creation and his prophets are beloved to him. The Christ is "God's Word," so why wouldn't God save him? However, interestingly, this is another idea that has some disagreement to it. The actual wording says that they (Jews and Romans) were glad that he died and claimed that "we have killed him" where the response is that "no, they did not really kill him" which could mean either that he wasn't subjected to the cross at all (the most popular idea) or that they didn't /kill him/ because he is /alive/, and with living with God.
>All Muslims besides Quranists place values on Hadiths, but they widely disagree on which Hadiths are valid.
Yes.
>>821154
>This is a serious issue
Sort of; not really. Only in recent history have ahadith been anything but supplemental material from which jurists can use to make judgements on cases for which there are no clear answers in the Qur'an, the sunnah (the sirah [life of Muhammad] and traditions of his companions), ijma (legal precedent ), and ijtihad (individual reasoning). Granted that the earliest community made use of what not would/could be a hadith, at the time that ahadith were compiled even the compilers all agreed that the vast majority collected weren't even worth collecting and that those that were collected weren't reliable as definitive sources for fiqh and sharia.
>Now either moral injunctions came from God, or they did not.
That's a big question that myriad thinkers have questioned with, but it's pretty clear that the Qur'an and sharia were never intended to have a comprehensize overview of all possible human dilemmas, interactions, etc., and that the fact that the Qur'an itself can be open to interpretation, or vague, and that it often provides options, lends itself to the idea that God is not a legalist and doesn't demand that of his people (though they must follow the sharia, obviously).
>it is a serious flaw that there was not system to determine which are valid left behind by Mohammad
Well, unlike the Oecumenical councils, Islam didn't wait hundreds of years to codify what its beliefs and canon were. When Muhammad died there were hundreds of huffaz (memorizers of the qur'an) all over Arabia and the entire thing was put to writing in its current form within one generation. This, and the early formations of the institution of usul al-fiqh and the ulama were already established when Muhammad passed.
>Islam is one, complete entity
Why don't schools teach Middle Eastern/Islamic history? For fucks sakes, these "infidel" idiots are allowed to vote and make decisions.
>>821158
>BUT MUH SUNNI VS. SHIA!!!
>>821142
>4. Muslims believe that depictions of Mohammad are forbidden because the visual depiction of Jesus led to Christians worshipping Jesus, which they were not supposed to.
And yet Muslims worship Muhammad anyway
>>821155
Oh, and #4 has some really weird logic to it. Granting prestige and deifying are entirely different things that are based on action and belief. Ascribing an armchair psychologist interpretation of what they "really" are doing is silly at best. It also strangely ignores the similar Jewish precedent of prohibition which is similarly not an argument that "created things are like God" but that "when people make these things they both worship them as gods and they claim for themselves the idea that they can also create things". Which is entirely reasonable in the Abrahamic theology. This attack also that Muslims that aren't strict iconoclasts aren't "serious" is such a childish attack, and also incorrect. This strictness is another modern phenomenon, as Muslim artists are not historically wholly against depicting things. In fact they quite love art that depicts Muhammad, but Islamic civilization (and actually all ancient to medieval civilizations share this) has notions of public vs private art, in which public art is architecture, gardening, calligraphy, mosaics, etc., whereas private art that can't be maligned by the uncultured and the enemies of the faith can include with these painting and drawing.
>>821168
They don't, but believe what you want to.
>>821147
>No, in this case, Islam's prohibition of physical depictions of Mohammed imply divinity.
Or that it's a convention for preventing worshiping idols of Muhammad like a deity, as is done with other previous persons.
>>821146
>Yeah that's not true. And the Qur'an allows the Prophet only to have had more than 4 at a time because of his special character and position (the condition of having more than one wife being that one is able to provide for and love equally, and/or to protect and give shelter to a woman that is socially isolated, which is specifically an injunction against the pagan practice of the rich being able to have an infinite number of wives that have no rights beside what's allowed by their husbands [and keep in mind that Islam permits divorce]). But if you're against plural marriage there's really nothing to say that'll make it "right".
This attitude of the teleos of a particular injunction being limited according to time and place is distinctly Christian. Does Islam hold this perspective on Islamic law? If that is so, then how or when can you tell where a law is obsolete or not applicable? For Christians, the last covenant made with Christ is until the Second Coming.
> but of course, the sacrifice is cancelled, because God is not like the pagans think and doesn't desire that kind of sacrifice, only the faith behind it.
This trivializes the story and turns it into an isolate anecdote, like one of Aesop's Fables, as opposed to an important incident connected with the rest of the Biblical narrative. Isaac primacy is strongly related to Israel's primacy.
>>821216
>it's more than a little interesting that this miraculous child and prophet's lineage would be so "forgotten" by God, especially when He promises to "make [Ishmael] a great nation"
He does. He also says the Ishmael will be a wild ass, though, and he will be hostile toward all his brothers. God's consideration for Ishmael, out of respect for Abraham, does not necessarily mean Ishmael is chosen by God for anything particularly holy, God also allots respect to Esau's descendants.
>The Christ is "God's Word," so why wouldn't God save him?
God willed that his Messiah suffer and perish. Christ wanted to live, but said not as I will, but as you will
>>821199
So instead, they make it forbidden and give him an air of sacredness akin to the prohibition of actually pronouncing "Yahweh." Whatever Mohammed's original intentions were, the "respect" given to him, with the PBUHs and the naming and the desire to emulate every minutae of his life is almost indistinguishable from the "veneration" given to Mary by the Orthodox and Catholics. "Veneration" Islam explicitly describes as worship/deification.
>>821155
>Only in recent history have ahadith been anything but supplemental material from which jurists can use to make judgements on cases for which there are no clear answers in the Qur'an
Is there any Islam equivalent to the Sanhedrin? That is, can they make definitive rulings, or are those who make rulings basically like rabbis?
>lends itself to the idea that God is not a legalist and doesn't demand that of his people
This seems a very Christian idea. If God is not a legalist in Islam, then why does he literally prescribe a LEGAL code?
>Islam didn't wait hundreds of years to codify what its beliefs and canon were
There are major discrepancies in Hadith canons and what conception of the proper practice of Islam.
>>821199
That doesn't make any sense. If you need an idol to worship, then Muslims couldn't worship God.
>>821230
>So instead, they make it forbidden and give him an air of sacredness akin to the prohibition of actually pronouncing "Yahweh."
I'm sorry, but this is a really deliberate mischaracterization on your part. That's not just how it is.
>>821242
No, it isn't. I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt and say the rule was genuinely intended to prevent worship of him. But you do not murder artists who draw your holy prophet because you are worried someone is going to worship a satirical drawing. You murder someone for blasphemy and sacrilege.
>>821251
This. If Islam was against pictures of Mohammed for fear he might elevated to the status of God (whom in fact there are NO depictions of), then Muslims would not see depictions of Mohammed by non-Muslims as offensive.
>>821251
This makes more sense.
>>821216
>This attitude of the teleos of a particular injunction being limited according to time and place is distinctly Christian.
No, I'm sure that other people, including Jews, have had similar thoughts.
>If that is so, then how or when can you tell where a law is obsolete or not applicable?
Islam has the recitations, along with scholarly and philosophical traditions that deal with the execution and interpretation of religious laws. Anything more is outside of my scope to answer, really. Refer to Kamali's Principles of Islamic Jurisprudence if you're really interested.
>This trivializes the story and turns it into an isolate anecdote
To you, maybe.
>God's consideration for Ishmael, out of respect for Abraham, does not necessarily mean Ishmael is chosen by God for anything particularly holy, God also allots respect to Esau's descendants.
And yet, it would seem, God gave a revelation to the descendant of Ishmael that made them into monotheists worshiping Abraham's God. Of course you probably disagree with that notion, yet it is the truth.
>God willed that his Messiah suffer and perish.
Again, not all Muslim interpretations disagree. But they all agree that...
>Christ wanted to live, but said not as I will, but as you will
... this is the case, and that God made him live. Just as the Christians believe. "Xristos voskrese," no?
>>821238
>Is there any Islam equivalent to the Sanhedrin?
Even during the Caliphates, the Ummah was never governed by a singular body the way the Israelites/Judeans were, no. Islam prefers a kind of theocratic anarchy, similar to Rabbis or the Early Christian period of the apostles and the desert fathers/mothers, but without the asceticism. Simply put: there is no Pope nor Supreme Court in Islam, but jurists and scholars (classically, and up until recently) belong to established traditions that go back to the Prophet himself.
>>821238
>This seems a very Christian idea. If God is not a legalist in Islam, then why does he literally prescribe a LEGAL code?
He doesn't. What is commonly called Islamic Law is a manmade attempt at reflecting God's perfect order and harmony in order to further the discipline and faith of His followers. At least, that's the classical approach.
>>821282
>This seems a very Christian idea.
Sure. And a Jewish one, as well, among others.
>If God is not a legalist in Islam, then why does he literally prescribe a LEGAL code?
Man is a social being and needs laws.
>There are major discrepancies in Hadith canons
Yes.
>and what conception of the proper practice of Islam.
The ahadith have never been the basis of law nor tradition.
>>821251
>But you do not murder artists who draw your holy prophet because you are worried someone is going to worship a satirical drawing.
You're talking about a modern phenomenon that is not connected to tradition, if only because such a thing is effectively impossible before things like the printing press. These events aren't based in law at all but in emotional backlash relating to global sociopolitics. Indeed, the murders didn't happen because of idolatry but because of their insults- it's a completely different topic, the one at hand dealing entirely with Muslims and their art to being with.
And yes, your attribution that Muslims "worship" Muhammad is a personal error that mischaracterizes actual Muslim belief.
>>821270
>If Islam was against pictures of Mohammed for fear he might elevated to the status of God (whom in fact there are NO depictions of), then Muslims would not see depictions of Mohammed by non-Muslims as offensive.
Unless, you know, they are actually offensive.
>>821283
>What is commonly called Islamic Law is a manmade attempt at reflecting God's perfect order and harmony in order to further the discipline and faith of His followers
Why is it that, of all the major world religions, only Christianity and Confucianism emphasize the dangers of legalism? I guess Buddhism does as a basic principle of operation (moving beyond karma) but Islam can't get into the notion at all.
>>821301
>Indeed, the murders didn't happen because of idolatry but because of their insults
So what about completely neutral depictions that do not insult him in any way? For example, all the controversy over South Park even potentially depicting Mohammed in a neutral standing position, compared to all the other religious figures that were outright insulted? Unless, for example, you are trying to say that a cartoon of Mohammed specifically is insulting because it's not serious enough to portray him, in which case you are again sanctifying him.
Whether or not it is traditional or not is also completely irrelevant. This spherical Islam in a vacuum you call perfect doesn't matter if Muslims are collectively following a non-perfect version. And this non-perfect version involves worship of Mohammed on the same level that some Christians worship Mary. It doesn't matter what you call it. What matters is the behaviour.
>>821310
It's called Sufism. Anti-nomian thought isn't actually rare in Islamic history. And it's most recently that religious legalism has taken such a major role in theology and populism.
>>821340
Then nothing means anything.
>>821367
Of course it does. If you write a piece of music but call it a book, it's still a piece of music. You're just using language to try and get away with something you're not supposed to be doing.
>>821340
>So what about completely neutral depictions that do not insult him in any way?
No one cared about them, and today any complaints about them are direct offshoots of the uproar over the more insulting examples. The Danish cartoons, for example, were published in Egyptian newspapers months before any protests and got almost no reaction as they were almost all benign or slightly tongue-in-cheek. It's when they were later popularized alongside some fake cartoons that were far more insulting that the riots broke out.
>all the controversy over South Park even potentially depicting Mohammed in a neutral standing position
I remember episodes of South Park where Muhammad was flying around as a superhero shooting flame from his hands. No one really cared then. It was all about the claim that South Park MIGHT insult him that suddenly became a huge deal, and by huge I mean manufactured drama by a New Jersey webring of maybe a dozen Muslim edgelords.
>>821310
>>821340
You should actually read on Islamic history and not confuse contemporary Islamic Extremism for the entirety of the thing. I know that's now how you're supposed to think about it, but it's correct.
Funny that you pick South Park as an example though. When the original Super Best Friends episode premiered there was no response at all to the episode, positive or negative. It's only after the WTC attacks and the War on Terrorism when the fringe Islamists made any fuss about the latter episodes. It's a social phenomenon and nothing more.
>Whether or not it is traditional or not is also completely irrelevant.
It is when you say it's inherent to Islam, when it can be shown it isn't.
>This spherical Islam in a vacuum you call perfect
Again, putting words into people's mouths.
>are collectively following a non-perfect version.
You know the standard response to this: if Islam is responsible for its crazies, then Christianity is for its. I don't care either way,
>And this non-perfect version involves worship of Mohammed on the same level that some Christians worship Mary.
You can keep saying it and it'll never be true. Like saying Catholics worship the Pope. You're obviously emotionally invested. I suggest you either take a step back and try to learn objectively, or just don't engage with the subject.
>>821377
Your argument works against you.
'Behaviour' is defined in this situation by the Quran. It calls this behaviour 'Islam.' The problem occurs when people are doing not-behaviour and saying it's Islam.
It doesn't matter what you call it. What matters is the behaviour.
>>821142
Actually, Shia Muslims in Iran have no problem drawing the profit Mohamed. Its just the Sunni ones.
>>821412
Exactly.
>>820944
why do the shiite dogs always betray their moslem brothers to insult islam with the christian kuffar?
>>820786
>4. Though more reasonable Muslims don't consider all artistic depiction to be wrong, most who are serious still think it is wrong to depict Mohammed. This grants enormous prestige to Mohammed in a way that is close to deifying him, since it is suggesting any depiction of him would be an idol, as if one were depicting God himself.
The reason why Muslims don't want a depiction of Mohammed is not so much prestige or divinity-related as it is related to Mohammed himself specifically stating to not depict him. The reason why is because he worked his whole life removing the idolatry present in Pre-Islamic Arabia, especially in Mekka. So it would not be rational to then make himself an idol people would worship, defeating the entire point of his mission. So it makes sense from a logical standpoint however, whether it has been effective to prevent Muslims from worshipping him is to be debated.
>>821146
> And the Qur'an allows the Prophet only to have had more than 4 at a time because of his special character and position
>the pagan practice of the rich being able to have an infinite number of wives
GJ Mohammed. Really practising what you preach there.
>>821943
How does not being depicted hinder his being worshiped? If that were the case, Muslims couldn't worship God. The reason God is not depicted in Islam, is because it hinders his being worshiped, not because it facilitates it.
>>821153
not
if
you're
a
PROTESTCUNT
catholicucks worship mary, protestcunts idolize jesus, ORTHOBROS worship GOD
^ this is bait
>>820784
Ex-muslim here, in north Africa we ignore the hadith as they aren't the Word of god
Judaism is the best way of life there is.
Christianity has no tools of self discipline, it simply tells you to be good yet it throws you to the dogs to deal with your harmful thoughts and desires by yourself, Judaism puts a protective fence arownd you to prevent it. For example, you are not allowed to be in a closed room with a woman not of your family to prevent pre merital sex and cheating.
Islam is way better, except it's too violent and does not put enough focus on studying, leading to them being hot headed simpletons mostly.
Anyone who will study the Jewish oral tradition will see how mind sharpening and thought deepening it is.
The only things preventing me from living religious Jewish life are doubt of the existance of God and conflicts between Judaism and science
>>822082
>nobody gives a shit about important and very relevant history
Fuck off this board.
>>821397
>The problem occurs when people are doing not-behaviour and saying it's Islam
If you'd like, then, we can separate theory from what people actually practice. In that case, "Islam" is again completely irrelevant if what people practice is "islam." Whatever Mohammed intended is all well and good, but if people are not acting like it then it does mot matter. What he said is not as important as what the believers think he said, because what people think he said is what's motivating violence.
>>821393
>You should actually read on Islamic history and not confuse contemporary Islamic Extremism for the entirety of the thing.
>Like saying Catholics worship the Pope
The Quran doesn't claim Catholics worship the Pope. It claims that Christians worship Mary. If going by Islam's own logic, the Christian "veneration" of Mary is *actually* worship, then by that same logic the Islamic "respect" of Mohammed is *actually* worship. Ever Christians do not worship Mary and Mohammed was wrong, or worship-by-a-different-name is still worship and Muslims are wrong.
>>821412
That's not a picture of Muhammed
>An Orthodox critique of Islam
How ironic.
>>821720
Because Shiite aren't Muslim, they're Zorastrian Jews
>>823306
>The Quran doesn't claim Catholics worship the Pope.
Didn't say it did, but this is something that Protestants and other anti-Catholics will say, and it's the same as you saying Muslims worship Muhammad. They're both weak, emotionalist ideological attacks.
>It claims that Christians worship Mary.
Two things of note: Your argument rests on a false equivalence. Christians do in fact create graven images of Mary, and Jesus and others, that they do in fact pray to, and they even call her the Theotokos. Absolutely none of these practices reflect anything in Islamic orthodoxy nor praxis regarding Muslim attitude toward Muhammad, nor anyone else. One can easily say from the Islamic perspective that the Christian practice of venerating Mary is at the least all but worship. Of course the fact that they unapologetically DO worship Jesus AS God doesn't really help their case, and it should be pointed out that Christians themselves have had to wrestle with this idea for as long as the practice has been around.
The second thing is that there actually was, according to Christian sources, a syncretic Christian religion among the Arabs called Collyridianism which really did worship Mary as a Goddess. It's quite possible that the Qur'an makes a double attack on both orthodox and hetero/unorthodox Christian practice by specifically calling out these people.
Regardless, your trap is weak.
>>821147
The Iberian Muslims drunk to get trashed, I'm sure they could drink socially if it was really important.
>>822082
>cause nobody gives a Shi'ite
Ah!
>>823969
>Absolutely none of these practices reflect anything in Islamic orthodoxy nor praxis regarding Muslim attitude toward Muhammad, nor anyone else.
>nor anyone else
Exactly. If Muslims do not worship Allah this way, why would they all-but-worship Mohammed that way? They wouldn't, of course. Like Allah, they would absolutely refuse depictions of him far above all others, protect his honor violently, etc. Which, is, unsurprisingly, exactly what we see.
> It's quite possible that the Qur'an makes a double attack on both orthodox and hetero/unorthodox Christian practice by specifically calling out these people.
Condemning literal and all-but worship of Mary is still condemning all-but worship. The hypocracy is not resolved when it comes to all-but worship of Mohammed by modern Muslims.
