Do modern Muslims even study their theology on an in-depth level anymore?
It seems most either have the secular academic framework, which mostly treat Islam as a historical or anthropological object and describe the views of Muslim theologians and philosophers without making meaningful contributions to theology, and Muslim apologetic literature which is mostly written by morons who haven't read any serious theology beyond wikipedia entries and see people like Ibn Arabi etc as heretics
 Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14 |
 CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14 |
What do you mean by "anymore"? There were a couple Persian theologians who applied neo-platonic concepts to Islam extremely successfully and it paved way for some actually profound texts, but besides that extremely narrow selection most Muslim theology is either history or repeating the basics over and over.
why do persians always come into any thread related to islam only to say we wuz kangz? muslims really need a concept like ethnophyletism
Ask a persian when he appears here. I'm stressing it just to dunk on Arabs and their pride in their primitive religion.
nobody mentioned arabs but you
I didn't imply anyone had mentioned them.
in your very first post you claimed islamic theology as persian
I claimed the best of the theology is a by a couple persians and the rest is basic af. How are you so taken aback by such a slight jab at Muslim Arabs? This is Oyish.
>I claimed the best of the theology is a by a couple persians
point proven
>How are you so taken aback
its cringe, im middle eastern so im aware of the culture, but my religion has far more ethnicities than islam, and we have no ethnicity so demanding of a privileged position as persians, its super self-centered and ethno-narcissistic, most muslim theologians ive read were arab, and some of my favorite are persians, turks etc., but i dont care, and most muslims dont either, only persians do, and some turks too (i find this equally annoying), najmuddin kubra was one of the greatest islamic theologians, and there are plenty like him coming from south asia, but you dont see south asian spergs like this whatsoever
No he didn't he just said the stuff he liked was persian
Can you brownoids stop shitflinging at each other
>the stuff he liked
>There were a couple Persian theologians who paved way for some actually profound texts, but besides that extremely narrow selection most Muslim theology is either history or repeating the basics over and over.
this has to be a samegay
>There were a couple Persian theologians who paved way for some actually profound texts, but besides that extremely narrow selection
>but besides that extremely narrow selection most Muslim theology is either history or repeating the basics over and over.
Learn to read. This literally means I like this stuff and dont like this other stuff
bad faith, name 10 muslim theologians
Muslims have been completely disconnected from their tradition mostly by the legacy of wahhabism and colonialism. Consider how in the Azhar university post colonial reforms, a children's introductory theology book became the "advanced" text of theology for university students (pic related). With such a massive disconnect with the previous tradition is no wonder why most """"imams""""" nowadays are downright moronic
dumb meme
although you are correct philosophy and theology was mostly conducted by philosophers who happen to be Iranian although there are some Arab contributions. Theology and philosophy continued to develop throughout Muslim history until the eventual decline of the Muslim world
>mostly conducted by philosophers who happen to be Iranian
name 10
when i was still muslim, i asked my local hoja about the theology of abdul qadir al gilani and al qushayri, he said i should try not to "invent a new religion", lol.
Islam is just a slightly more interesting form of deism, it can't sustain interest and devotion like Christianity can. The modern wave of fundamentalism is just a cope for the fact that Islam was seen as an atheistic legal code for centuries.
This, good point about it being a type of deism. Islamic scholars have always been far more obsessed with law and following Hadiths/Sharia than creating a complex theology.
Well there's nothing more important than following God's Law, but that's not the same thing as the kind of legalistic view of religion that Christ spoke against. Imo a big part of the zeal of early Moslems was simply the communistic fervor of completely destroying the existing order and replacing it with something new. Once the revolution was over, there wasn't much to be excited about anymore. Christianity, on the other hand, simply regulated the existing structures right from the start.
No? So was rabbinic Judaism. Autistic obedience to the law to preserve the stability and unity of the israeli community was valued over revealed religion or individual salvation. For that reason when presented with liberation from the shtetls most of them became atheists and/or substituted communism or postmodernism as a religion.
Deism is a rationalistic rejection of divine providence. Billions of people follow Islam BECAUSE of Islam's promise of divine providence ordering their lives. So no moron. This is like calling Christianity deism because it doesn't worship trees and stones (and pagan writers did actually call Christians atheists).
Don't confuse Christianity's narcissistic appeal to sinful humans anthropomorphising of God as the standard of every religion.
I don't deny that Islam is a genuine religion that can bridge the gap between man and God, Moslems no doubt benefit greatly from it compared to atheists and deists. But despite my hyperbole I stand by my previous statement.
>anthropomorphising of God
Every great religion appeals to sages and peasants alike. Equating the peasant's understanding of it with the sage's is a duplicitous tactic.
Because the most "interesting" insights came from those who incorporated Greek philosophy or heavy non-dual buddhist/sufi teachings. Both of which are incredibly haram and were always seen as heterodox and fringe over the centuries.
this is a complete nonsense worldview, gonna divide your claim into 2 points:
1. first of all, greek philosophy is not a particular, the ideas within greek philosophy are claimed to be universal by greek philosophy itself, and can be found in various religions and cultures that have nothing to do with greece
2. islam alongside all belief systems which can be characterized as orthoprax rather than orthodox, i.e via legalism like in islam and judaism are functionally completely heterodox in belief (see kabbalah, sufism), in islam it was even so, that before sharia, early orthopraxy was simply handed down by proto-sufi orders, evidently showing the 2 were actually somewhat undivided unlike you claim
1. I sense some coping here. The 8-9th century Muslim Aristotelians were basically wiped out and heavily criticized in the centuries that followed by prominent Sunni scholars. Moreover, the notable ones that came later are really only seen as novelties in the West, and are seen as fringe if they are known at all in the Islamic world.
2. There's nothing inherently wrong with orthopraxy. I just think the Muslims had a very strange and redundant version of it considering their source material. I also think the Islamic world was far, far too obsessed with orthopraxy to it's intellectual detriment.
>The 8-9th century Muslim Aristotelians
islam is an aristotelian religion, what are you even talking about, how does your 1 even address the 1 in my post?
>There's nothing inherently wrong with orthopraxy
how is this even an argument? i feel like you just didnt understand the majority of technical terms in my post and felt the need to hear your own voice
>islam is an aristotelian religion
You don't actually believe this, right? If anything, the only place where Greek philosophy has a home in Islam is in small offshoots like Ismaili Shi'ism, and even that's debatable.
>how is this even an argument? i feel like you just didnt understand the majority of technical terms in my post and felt the need to hear your own voice
That response was unlettered and I don't think English is your first language. My entire point was that Islam lacks theological profundity *specifically because it's obsessed with orthopraxy* and falls too in love with legalism.
dude you know 0 of the philosophical technical terms i used, and couldnt even comprehend half the arguments i was making to such an extent that i dont even know how to respond to you, because youre literally talking to yourself at this point;
you cant make points, you literally think greek philosophy is a particular (this is a technical term), that aristotelianism (technical term) is a universal (technical term) belief, its not a particular (technical term) written thing, youre so moronic that you dont even realize that this is in itself an aristotelian belief.
read plato, maybe guenon and then larouche (no anon, not the wikipedia articles)
Islam lost its philosophical and rationalistic bent after the 12th century.
Islam has never been scrutinized with anything approaching the academic rigor Christianity and Judaism have
The Saudis refuse to allow even carbon dating to be done at their sacred sites
>and Judaism
Judaism has an entire corpus of secular academic study from Ancient Canaanite religion all the way up to the Conservative movement in the 19th century.
jews believe that kabbalistic literature is completely coherent with scripture and the talmud, which literal israeli academics claim to be wrong
Non-Sequitur.
old testament god = personal
kabbalah god = ein sof
talmud god = torah word itself
most scholars regard this as inconsistent