Muslim PoMos

[Anonymous No.7381602]

Honest question /lit/. Why is it that, aside from Reza Aslan, there's hardly any prominent Muslim academics in the humanities today?

I don't mean to sound orientalist, but I've been told much of this has to do with Islamic culture. The vast majority of Muslims who enter Western universities major in STEM rather than humanities or social sciences. Part of me thinks this is because their culture discourages things like deconstructionism. To compare, several prominent culture critics and deconstructionists came from Jewish backgrounds; Judaism is all about exegesis on the written Torah. In Islam, you are not allowed to interpret the Qur'an in any other way aside from what's said in the Hadith, as the Qur'an was given to one man only (Muhammad) and for good reason.

Am I wrong?

[Anonymous No.7381615]

>>7381602
>implying there are any prominent religious academics nowadays

[Anonymous No.7381617]

>>7381602
You are, there's plenty of Muslim academicians, particularly in Islamic studies.

[Anonymous No.7381622]

>>7381615
Most of the well-known PoMos and Critical Theorists tend to come from Jewish or Catholic backgrounds.

I'm also convinced Alain Badiou is a closeted christfag.

[Anonymous No.7381623]

>>7381602
the most prominent academic in the world

[Anonymous No.7381625]

>>7381623
Isn't he dead?

[Anonymous No.7381627]

>>7381602
>Reza Aslan
>Prominent

[Anonymous No.7381629]

>>7381602
>In Islam, you are not allowed to interpret the Qur'an in any other way aside from what's said in the Hadith, as the Qur'an was given to one man only (Muhammad) and for good reason.
Can anyone confirm this? I feel as though this statement probably came from jihadwatch.

[Anonymous No.7381643]

>>7381627
What's wrong with him?

[Anonymous No.7381683]

>>7381629
It's bullshit. Only a small portion of the hadith corpus consists of tafsir (Qur'anic exegesis), so (even by traditional standards) Qur'anic interpretation can be based on a number of factors. There is interpretation based on linguistics (al-Zamakhshari, Abu Hayyan), logic and dialectic (ar-Razi), oral tradition, encompassing not only hadith but also Isra'iliyyat (Jewish legends) and statements of salaf (at-Tabari, Ibn Kathir), legal reasoning (Qadi Abu Bakr, al-Jassas), and mysticism (at-Tustari, al-Bursawi, Abi Su'ud, Ibn Ajiba, al-Maybudi, al-Kashani, al-Qushayri).

[Anonymous No.7381684]

>>7381625
NATO & Co. have claimed they got him in one of their airstrikes a couple of times already. but every time he just turns up alive.

[Anonymous No.7381723]

>>7381602
I can name you several Muslim Western academics.

Here's two good ones: Hossein Nasr and Hossein Modarressi.

Before you make really ignorant statements, do a little research. And Reza Aslan is shit.

[Anonymous No.7381729]

>>7381602
Reza Negerastani's Cyclonopedia is a masterpiece

[Anonymous No.7381735]

>>7381723
Oh also Jonathan AC Brown. Definitely him as well.

[Anonymous No.7381736]

Basically the entire field of post-colonialism uses post structuralist theory though.

(and yes, I realize Said is dead)

[Anonymous No.7381739]

>>7381736
He was Christian.

[Anonymous No.7381749]

>>7381602
>Honest question /lit/. Why is it that, aside from Reza Aslan, there's hardly any prominent Muslim academics in the humanities today?
Firstly,
>Reza Aslan
Secondly, I can tell that you're not actually in academia and you only listen to pop academics.

>I don't mean to sound orientalist, but I've been told much of this has to do with Islamic culture. The vast majority of Muslims who enter Western universities major in STEM rather than humanities or social sciences.
People in general seem to go into STEM because of the money.

>culture discourages things like deconstructionism
So you have no concept of the Islamic scholarly tradition
>In Islam, you are not allowed to interpret the Qur'an in any other way aside from what's said in the Hadith, as the Qur'an was given to one man only (Muhammad) and for good reason
This is the opinion of a few Islamic hermeneutics scholars, but definitely not Muslim Western academics in Islamic studies and not the majority of Islamic scholars in general. Also hadith interpretation and authentication, as well as narrator authentication, are also very important fields in the Islamic tradition

>Am I wrong?
Yes. Very.

[Anonymous No.7381757]

>>7381739

You're right, I actually didn't know that.

[Anonymous No.7381763]

>there's hardly any prominent Muslim academics in the humanities today

Same reason there's hardly any hardcore Christians in academia: Education cures people of their religion.

[Anonymous No.7381771]

>>7381757
Still a great academic though and there are other good Muslim ones like the ones listed above. Hossein Nasr and Jonathan AC Brown are top-tier.

[Anonymous No.7381787]

>>7381749
>>culture discourages things like deconstructionism
>So you have no concept of the Islamic scholarly tradition
TIL deconstructionists existed in the Abbasid Caliphate.

[Anonymous No.7381790]

>>7381787
The Islamic scholarly tradition still persists today and it existed before the Abbasid era.

[Anonymous No.7381793]

>>7381602
Hamid Dabashi

[Anonymous No.7381796]

>>7381763
>Education cures people of their religion

[Anonymous No.7381800]

>>7381796
>>7381790
>replying to obvious bait

[Anonymous No.7381829]

>>7381796
Cool counterpoint.

>>7381800
I didn't mean it as bait at all. Religion is a gigantic waste of time, and religious people are almost always entirely lost when they try to debate secular academics because their logic doesn't function outside the sphere of that religion.

[Anonymous No.7381833]

>>7381829
Nice opinion. :)

[Anonymous No.7381835]

>>7381833
>replying to obvious bait

[Anonymous No.7381849]

There's thousands of Muslims academics around the world - the majority work with the Arabic language and thus not accessible to the West.

For Western Muslim Academics, you can check out Hamza Yusuf (probably the most famous one atm) and Abdal Hakim Murad/ Tim Winter

c'mon man, just youtube would've given you the answer

[Anonymous No.7381874]

>>7381790
Scholarly tradition =/= deconstructionism

Postmodernism is haram. A devout Muslim would never ever claim there are no metanarratives and that truth is unknowable.

[Anonymous No.7381887]

>>7381874
The entire basis of Islam rests on metanarratives being unknown.

Muhammad only gave us clues as to what he meant in the Koran. The rest relies entirely on scholarly interpretations.

Islamic scholars came up with their own dialectics almost a thousand years before Hegel or Marx. You wouldn't have modern philosophy without them.

Islam promotes critical thinking and challenging authority. Muhammad himself challenged the authority of the society in which he lived. Muslims are required by their religion to be socially aware, unlike Christians.

[Anonymous No.7381893]

I'm a Muslim. I studied Software Development in highschool and Computer Science in University.

I chose them because they interested me, not because my religion discouraged the other option.

[Anonymous No.7381900]

>>7381893
You didn't choose anything. It was predetermined by the universe. We have no free will, otherwise being gay would just be a choice, but nobody believes homosexuality is a choice

[Anonymous No.7381904]

>>7381887
Islam is metaphysical m8. PoMo is anti-metaphysics.

[Anonymous No.7381906]

>>7381900
I don't know about that anon.

I could be destined to do something, but then, through my own free will, I might do something wildly different.

[Anonymous No.7381911]

>Who are Nasr and Sachedina?

[Anonymous No.7381922]

>>7381904
>Islam is metaphysical m8. PoMo is anti-metaphysics.

You don't understand. Islam was never meant to be a code of law. Shariah is NOT a legal code but a map towards finding the good life, similar to virtue ethics.

Koran is intentionally vague because it was meant to evolve to fit whatever society embraced Islam. Islam evolves but its principles remain the same. That's because it's entirely about principles and gives no clear way on how to carry out those principles, thus it is entirely historicist.

Stop pretending Westerners can understand everything.

[Anonymous No.7381931]

>>7381922
FYI this is a very liberal and modernist interpretation of Islam/shariah. I highly doubt your most well-read imam would agree with what you're saying.

[Anonymous No.7381945]

>>7381922
>Koran is intentionally vague because it was meant to evolve to fit whatever society embraced Islam.
If this is the case, then ISIS is just as true to the authentic Islamic teaching as any intersectional hijabi feminist.

[Anonymous No.7381950]

>>7381893
What're you doing here though?

[Anonymous No.7381955]

>>7381950
What am I doing on /lit/?

Browsing, discussing literature.

I don't really mind all of the hate that my religion gets, as it's not my fault people are angry about it or it is the way it is.

I just ignore the hateful comments and discuss other topics.

[Anonymous No.7381956]

>>7381922
>Blah blah blah. People interpreted my bullshit religion wrongly.

Stop pretending Westerners are wrong about everything just because they're Westerners.

[Anonymous No.7381961]

>>7381955
I was asking the question more because you said you were a CS major in school and less because you said you're Muslim, actually.

[Anonymous No.7381963]

>>7381961
Ah, well. I'm in Australia and the school year has finished so I've got nothing to do until February when I start my next year.

[Anonymous No.7381967]

>yfw the quran turns out to be an elaborate satire of the bible

[Anonymous No.7381971]

>>7381963
go back to islam cunt we are full

[Anonymous No.7381975]

>>7381971
I've been here since 1993. I don't think Australia was as full back then as it is now.

[Anonymous No.7381982]

>>7381643

lied about his qualifications i think

and he's a sophist

[Anonymous No.7381988]

>>7381887

>Islam promotes critical thinking and challenging authority

nice one m8

[Anonymous No.7381993]

>>7381945

yes

[Anonymous No.7382006]

>>7381922
i do agree with this anon as a muslim but i do not have enough evidence to support this. i didnt study quran enough.

[Anonymous No.7382012]

Only good post after >>7381849 is >>7381911. Everything else below >>7381849 is bullshit made by polemical people who haven't studied the Islamic theological and legal tradition. Take caution.

[Anonymous No.7382013]

>>7381887

>islam challenges authority
>name literally means "Submission"

To me Islam means "don't do this, don't wear that, don't eat that, run around the holy rock eight times, don't draw that etc etc"

There's more logic in the priest chanting in age of empires one

[Anonymous No.7382016]

>>7382013
You are replying to bullshit with bullshit. Good job.

[Anonymous No.7382049]

>>7381602
>In Islam, you are not allowed to interpret the Qur'an in any other way aside from what's said in the Hadith, as the Qur'an was given to one man only (Muhammad) and for good reason.
uw0tm8? Ever heard of Ijtihad? Or have you talked to Muslims? Scripture is treated almost the same in every culture, keep the parts you want, discard 90% of it.

Anyways, not specialized in this area, but I've seen plenty of Arab names pass by in the books I've read for university. Khalidi is a prominent (originally) Palestinian historian, not sure if he's religious, but a quick wiki says he's in an organization that describes itself as:
>"a national organization of Jews, Christians and Muslims dedicated to dialogue, education and advocacy for peace based on the deepest teachings of the three religious traditions".

Anecdotal, I also have a Muslim mate who is studying History, specializing in modernist studies.

[Anonymous No.7382051]

>>7381922
you haven't read the shariah law if you think it as a 'map towards finding the good life'

[Anonymous No.7382085]

>>7382051
>he thinks you can just read ''The Shari'a Law'
>Sharia or sharia law (Arabic: شريعة (IPA: [ʃaˈriːʕa]), is the basic Islamic legal system[1] derived from the religious precepts of Islam, particularly the Quran and the Hadith.
There are several ways to reach lawmaking in Islam.

Either it's literally in the Qur'an, but more often than not it isn't, so there needs to be ijtihad by scholars, analogous decisions (Qur'an forbids date wine (khamr), does that mean Muslims can't drink date wine, or can't drink alcohol? is an easy example), hadiths to back it up (the Qur'an only contains around 26 actual law giving verses), then there are the Rashidun that can be consulted and drawn from, then there are the medieval jurists that can be consulted, then there is ijtihad, a personal attempt to draw law from Islamic sources, then there's ''consensus'' among all jurists of a particular time period (itself based on a hadith stating that Muhammad's community should never wander in ignorance, meaning that if all of them agree on something, it becomes law)

You've proven your ignorance by your post, Shariah law is not something you can ''read'', it's an immense process containing every single legitimate Islamic source you can muster, including personal interpretation.

[Anonymous No.7382106]

>>7382085
and the consensus among them all is quite readable

[Anonymous No.7382138]

>>7382106
That would leave you with a very tiny amount of Shariah, because Muslims haven't agreed on anything worthwhile since the death of the Prophet. Although I suppose most Sunni ulama don't even concern themselves with Shi'a opinions.

Anyways, consensus can not be applied to contemporary times, it has to be back tracked a couple of centuries. It isn't like a council meeting or anything. So I doubt this is ''readable'' as you say. Islam is not a monolith, and should not be treated as such. Fiqh and Shariah is incredibly complicated and subjective.

[Anonymous No.7382159]

>>7382138
I don't think scholars of Islamic law enter their PhD program to be told that their field is in such a constant state of flux that it can't actually be pinned down.

I'm amazed that people exists who will maintain, on the one hand, that the Koran is a divine revelation from God and, on the other, that the whole thing is such a mess that nobody agrees on anything.

They tell you the first of these things when they want you to convert, and the second when they want you to stop criticizing the religion.

[Anonymous No.7382183]

>>7382159
Why not? This is what they told us when we started studying History. Any Muslim will know he either agrees or disagrees with Wahhabism, Takfirism, Sunnism, Shi'ism (sixer, twelver, etc.), Alawism, Kharijism, etc.

Religion isn't an object, and religious law is incredibly diverse. I wasn't stating that there is literally nothing they agree on (Tawhid, which is the main point of Islam to begin with), but that to say ''read the Shariah law'' is ridiculous and signaling of ignorance. That was my whole point.

>I'm amazed that people exists who will maintain, on the one hand, that the Koran is a divine revelation from God and, on the other, that the whole thing is such a mess that nobody agrees on anything.
They won't say it's a mess, they'll say that man can not know the full intentions of God or His word, that there are hidden meanings behind hidden meanings, etc.

All I was saying was that you can't ''read'' Shariah law.

[Anonymous No.7382201]

>>7382183
You could probably get a book giving you an overview of the five sunni school of Islamic jurisprudence.

You'd still find out that most (4 out of 5 I think) believe that the punishment for blasphemy is death.

You'd discover that in at least one of them, blasphemy is made to include the rejection of scholarly consensus.

[Anonymous No.7382471]

>>7381922
Stop claiming the monopoly on interpreting everything related to islam. Westerners can and will discuss anything they like.

[Anonymous No.7382486]

>>7381749
>Secondly, I can tell that you're not actually in academia and you only listen to pop academics.
This. If you were actually into reading monographs you would see plenty of Saids and Muhhameds in bibliographies and journals.

Also the fact that there is a massive field of Islamic Jurisprudence shows that there are questions within the law.

[Anonymous No.7382489]

>>7382051
Tbf, Sharia incorporates massive social programs. In a true Sharia state, housing and healthcare would be totally free and a poor tax would be paid for all, with only people of the book paying poll tax. There are not many true shariah states if any.

The inhuman punishment codes and apostasy shit is all people really look at though.

[Anonymous No.7382540]

>>7381602
The Pomo orientation of most humanities departments certainly turns away most religious people, just as much as it turns away fundamentalists of any stripe (including capitalist, materialist, and neo-darwinian).

But not every program in religion is deconstruction-oriented. At least some professors in most top-tier programs ala UCSB, Harvard, Chicago, view pomo deconstruction as second-tier hermeneutics.

Philosophical hermeneutics/hermeneutical philosophy leaves space for people with unconventional/religious metaphysics to explore this stuff with an open mind.

In Islamic studies there is a really interesting pedigree with this sort of thing, centering around Louis Massignon and Henri Corbin.

Though Corbin was a Catholic docetist he had a mystical experience while reading Suhrawardi which fueled decades of scholarship on sufism. His book, History of Islamic Philosophy, is the scholarly book on the subject.

Though he wasn't a Muslim he is still widely read in Iran.

[Anonymous No.7382552]

>>7382489
>Tbf, Sharia incorporates massive social programs. In a true Sharia state, housing and healthcare would be totally free and a poor tax would be paid for all, with only people of the book paying poll tax. There are not many true shariah states if any.
All of these things are political in nature and have nothing whatsoever to do with virtue ethics.

Also, no one interpreted Shariah as "virtue ethics" up until 9/11 when Muslims were forced to modernize their religion.

[Anonymous No.7382555]

>>7381736
what was it that edward said?

[Anonymous No.7382558]

>>7382552
>All of these things are political in nature

Islam ISNT Christianity. Islam is by its very nature a political system as well as a religion. Shit, the Sunni-Shi'a split is over a fucking succession crisis. ISIS' complaints regarding Saudi Arabia is that they only implement Shariah as a means to continue their dynasty by harsh repression, not to provide for the people as Muhammad wanted. The Islamic ideal is an Islamic world state the horror ruled by Islamic virtue and law, where there is no more dar al-harb, only the dar al-islam

[Anonymous No.7382567]

>>7382489
socialism>shariah law
it's quite obvious how incoherent and ridden of errors the shariah is, as it is like others mentioned a process of debating within a system of religion (adhering to certain verses in the qu'ran and hadith)
living under shariah would be horrible for any kuffar, denying this is simply being a toddler and refusing to accept the truth.
i sure as hell wont be paying jiyza to my opressors.

[Anonymous No.7382568]

>>7381922
>thus it is entirely historicist.
Now I know you're bullshitting. In fact, I'm guessing you're not even Muslim but a Western apologist who doesn't like knowing that Ahmad's theology goes against your historical materialist beliefs.

Islam is not a historicism in the least bit. Muslims believe every individual is born a Muslim, and thus must be born into an Islamic state. One's salvation can only come from strict adherence to the law, which is nearly impossible if society isn't being run in an Islamic way.

God's law is supposed to be perfect. To liberalize God's law in any way would be to put the unreliable senses of man before the perfect word of God.

[Anonymous No.7382569]

>>7382558
There were identical succession crises in early Christianity (James, Peter, Paul, all had different visions - Paul won). Your understanding of Islam seems to come mainly from Fox News.

Without Averroes and Spanish convivencia there literally wouldn't have been Descartes or Kant. Secularism came to Europe through Islam.

I'm an atheist myself, but I've also read a bit about the history of Islamic philosophy. It's that whole middle chapter between the Greeks and the enlightenment. You should look it up.

[Anonymous No.7382571]

>>7382558
>>7382569
You two are saying two entirely different things FYI.

Also, most Islamic philosophers were not necessarily devoted Muslims. Andalus was one of the most liberal places in history.

[Anonymous No.7382574]

>>7382571
>most Islamic philosophers were not necessarily devoted Muslims

That sounds interesting, but I can't help but think it's pure speculation/total nonsense. Can you back this up at all?

It's a really convenient way of brushing off an entire intellectual tradition.

[Anonymous No.7382579]

>>7382567
The whole point of shariah is to establish a society without contradiction but with private property, similar to fascism.

Shariah demands a social welfare system rather than the abolition of private property all together. Class conflict is resolved through class collaborationism.

Let's not forget Muhammad was a successful merchant before he became king, so to bash on markets and commodification would fly in the face of Islamic tradition which holds Muhammad to have been the perfect human being for all times and places.

[Anonymous No.7382581]

>>7382569
>Secularism came to Europe through Islam.
and yet Europeans actually saw the value of the idea rather than the denizens of the Islamic world.

Your claim is akin to saying that human populations should thank apes for fire because countless generations ago a big, dumb ape discarded two flints in front of the humans having been too stupid to find any use for those flints himself.

[Anonymous No.7382585]

>>7382579
>successful merchant
succesful warlord

[Anonymous No.7382586]

ITT: People with a cursory, superficial knowledge of a subject are debating a topic they have not read about. In other words, typical /lit/.

[why does this fit so much No.7382592]

>>7381922
>Christianity is metaphysical m8. PoMo is anti-metaphysics.

You don't understand. Christianity was never meant to be a code of law. Biblical Law is NOT a legal code but a map towards finding the good life, similar to virtue ethics.

The Bible is intentionally vague because it was meant to evolve to fit whatever society embraced Christianity. Christianity evolves but its principles remain the same. That's because it's entirely about principles and gives no clear way on how to carry out those principles, thus it is entirely historicist.

Stop pretending Easterners can understand everything.

[Anonymous No.7382594]

>>7382581

You're misinterpreting me 100% if you think I'm somehow an apologist for contemporary Islamic fundamentalism.

My point is simply that the history of Islam is much more fluid and complex than either ISIS or Fox News presents it. Averroes was a devout Muslim but he was also a materialist. Avicenna was a Muslim but he was a mystical neoplatonist.

We have people in this thread talking about what "Real Islam" is, or what "True Shariah" is. That's the whole fucking problem right there. In the Pomo view there isn't any such thing as Islam, just different historical contextualizations.

Islamic fundamentalism is a very, very young creature, stretching back at most to the end of the 19th century. It's a specific response to European modernism. Is fundamentalism the True Islam? I don't think so, as it depends entirely on the existence of western colonial industrial states.

For someone like Corbin, a platonist, Islam exists in the realm of ideal forms. The Hajj takes place on the plane of phantasms and is access through the organ of the imagination (imaginatrix).

Is Corbin right? Is the pomo anti-narrative narrative right? Are under-educated overly-confident 4chan posters right?

[Anonymous No.7382601]

What's the best english translation of the canonical sunni hadith? Preferably in physical form.

And how do I into Shia?

[Anonymous No.7382607]

>>7382586
but well done for using it to make yourself feel better though.

[Anonymous No.7382608]

>>7382594
>Is fundamentalism the True Islam? I don't think so, as it depends entirely on the existence of western colonial industrial states.
Wonderful, you're establishing that a "real Islam" existed at one point.

[Anonymous No.7382611]

>>7382607
>implying he's not right

[Anonymous No.7382612]

>>7382594
Typical taqiyaa.

Islam is metaphysical up until Westerners critique it, then it relies entirely on genealogical methods to explain away its faults.

[Anonymous No.7382618]

>>7382594
le no true scotsman face

[Anonymous No.7382620]

>>7382586
Pretty much this.

[Anonymous No.7382621]

>>7382608
>>7382612

Wow you guys are fucking dense. Lmao. I guess I'll just to back to /b/ where at least no one pretends to be anything other than a fucking retard.

[Anonymous No.7382624]

>>7382607
He's right man. The Muslim seems to be a kid who doesn't understand his religion and the guys debating him don't seem to have any reading done on Islam either. It's idiots talking to idiots.

[Anonymous No.7382625]

>literature

[Anonymous No.7382630]

>>7381602
because Islamic intellectual tradition encourages studies in the fields of engineering, physics, medicine and jurisprudence primarily

[Anonymous No.7382636]

>>7382607
>making myself feel better
Not really. It's been more disappointing if anything. I just find it strange that people who don't really have a solid knowledge of a subject think their opinions on it matter at all or are worthwhile.

[Anonymous No.7382637]

>>7381945
of course they are

doesnt mean theyre right within the context of the modern world though

[Anonymous No.7382643]

>>7382636
>>7382636
>I just find it strange that people who don't really have a solid knowledge of a subject think their opinions on it matter at all
are you 12?

[Anonymous No.7382650]

>>7382643
No, but the level of discourse in here has makes me think the mental age of the average /lit/ poster is around there.

[Anonymous No.7382653]

>>7382643
No, but the level of discourse in here makes me think the mental age of the average /lit/ poster is around there.

[Anonymous No.7382669]

>>7382643
>are you 12?

[Anonymous No.7382718]

Well, let's think about this way: if you're Muslim then you believe the Qur'an and the hadiths is all the source you need for objective moral and political philosophy. Then what would the point of studying secular philosophers that is oh so common in the required readings today? It seems to be a waste of time. God already tells you such and such is moral and such and such is immoral, why do you need another source?

[Anonymous No.7382751]

>>7382586
So what. Free discourse includes the right to make yourself look like an utter fool. I still prefer free discourse to the alternatives.

[Anonymous No.7382753]

>>7382636
but you're on 4chan?
you've never posted on a topic you didn't have "solid knowledge" of?
nobody here pretends to be an academic except you of course how special(read: autistic) you must be.

[Anonymous No.7383110]

> best books about Islam for non-Muslims written by Shias

Convince me Shia Islam isn't more pro-western because that's what everything is trying to tell me.

[Anonymous No.7383691]

>>7382569
>without islam the west wouldn't have had the enlightenment
>the enlightenment was evil read some pomo!!!!
Pick one. Just one.

[Anonymous No.7383697]

>>7382637
Islamic fundamentalism is a response to the confusion brought on by the modern world. They are perfectly right in their own minds, so why not accept their narratives as just as valid as the trans hijabi feminist's?

[Anonymous No.7383708]

>>7382718
This is arguably why most Western Muslims don't fully embrace Marxism or postmodernism. Marxism and PoMo are both haram, given that they fly in the face of traditional Islamic narratives.

Islam frowns on the nihilism and solipsism that PoMo promotes. A Muslim submits to God and everything God commands of him/her. They still hold on to the idea that everything they do has meaning because God is there and monitoring the world.

Marxism is anti-Islamic because 1. it despises idealism and metaphysics and 2. it has no theological foundation. Pious Muslims believe God's laws come first and much match the laws of an ideal state. Marxism, on the other hand, puts forth the laws of man and the idea of an ever-changing world (class struggle blah blah blah). To accept a Marxist narrative would be heretical.

A religious Muslim true to their traditions writing Critical Theory would sound a hell of a lot like Evola.

[Anonymous No.7383862]

>>7381893
>doesn't realize that his interests are also products of his culture/religion.

[Anonymous No.7384155]

>>7382718
Well, let's think about this way: if you're Christian then you believe the Bible is all the source you need for objective moral and political philosophy. Then what would the point of studying secular philosophers that is oh so common in the required readings today? It seems to be a waste of time. God already tells you such and such is moral and such and such is immoral, why do you need another source?

[Anonymous No.7384193]

>>7384155
>christianity is no better than islam
>therefore islam doesn't have any real problems
Nice logic.

[Anonymous No.7384211]

>>7384193
>islam is no better than christianity
>therefore christianity doesn't have any real problems
Nice logic.

[Anonymous No.7384224]

>>7384155
Only a small percentage of Christians believe the Bible is the literal word of God.

All Muslims, on the other hand, believe the Quran is the undisputed word of God. Nothing can be modified or changed.

I have been to liberal Muslim countries (Turkey, Jordan, and Morocco). None of these places have a real intellectual culture. Morocco and Jordan have an excuse with colonialism, but Turkey was never colonized by the West and is in fact quite Western in its own way. The culture in all of these places is very feudal. The family is at the center of Arab and Turkish society. Individualism does not exist.

[Anonymous No.7384283]

>>7384224
secular philosophy never happen. aristotle and plato are so islamic. golden age of islam no real. muslims arent as hypocritical as western christians anyways, so they cant undergo reform ever! people dont treat us western-styled intellectuals right so they must be stupid. if only i could meet fellow intellectuals at the local starbucks coffee. the family is center of society, but apparently individualism doesnt exist even though individualism is in part traced back to the insularity of the family.

[Anonymous No.7384320]

>>7382201
>You could probably get a book giving you an overview of the five sunni school of Islamic jurisprudence.
>five sunni school of Islamic jurisprudence.
>five

[Anonymous No.7384338]

>>7382585
>succesful warlord
He was a prominent and successful merchant before ever engaging in warfare.

[Anonymous No.7384342]

>>7384283
The Arab family is a relic from feudalism, almost identical to the European feudal family structure. The family unit that exists today in the West is the bare biological structure (mom, dad, kids) and is far more individualistic.

Arabs do not believe in individualism, and that's not necessarily a bad thing. The West is narcissistic whereas the Arab World is not.

Also, very few legitimate scholars use the term "Islamic Golden Age" anymore. It's usually referred to as the Arabic Age of Science, given that a good number of the scientists and philosophers were not Muslim.

[Anonymous No.7384351]

>>7382571
>Also, most Islamic philosophers were not necessarily devoted Muslims. Andalus was one of the most liberal places in history.
This is a favorite canard of Islamophile liberals, so it's funny to try to use it against Islam.

It's bullshit though. The greatest flowering of philosophy in al-Andalus was under the Almohads, a very bellicose and almost fundamentalist state with strong anti-Christian and anti-Jewish policies. Strange as it seems, the Almohad sultans were also into philosophy.

Ibn Rushd (Averroes) is sometimes referred to (ridiculously) as the father of secularism, but he was a prominent judge and legal theorist on Islamic law. His legal compendium, Bidayat al-Mujtahid, is still in use today by many institutions teaching sharia.

[Anonymous No.7384366]

>>7384351
Not to mention, most Islamic Golden Age philosophers advocated authoritarian states. Al-Farabi, the darling of neocon guru Leo Strauss, was one of them.

In all honesty, I hate it when liberals try to paint Islam as some kind of progressive religion, or defang it so it fits in perfectly with a postmodern culture. If that ends up being the case, then Islam will lose its subversive qualities and become just another ideology assimilated into capitalist culture norms. Already we see this with Muslims becoming the largest growing consumer market in the West.

[Anonymous No.7384372]

>>7384351
>Ibn Rushd (Averroes) is sometimes referred to (ridiculously) as the father of secularism,
Why is this the case?

[Anonymous No.7384384]

>>7384320
There are several more than just 4 or 5 schools. He could be referring to the Ibadhiyya, the Salafiyya (derivative of the Hanbali maddhab), the Mu'tazilliya (which practically influences every Sunni school of though), the Ashariyya, etc.

[Anonymous No.7384388]

>>7384283
>aristotle and plato are so islamic
Fun fact: there were Muslims who believed Aristotle was an Islamic prophet.

[Anonymous No.7384401]

>>7384388
You might be interested in this:
http://www.revivingalislam.com/2012/04/is-aristotle-prophet.html

[Anonymous No.7384423]

>>7384384
1. None of those are legal schools. Those are sects, not madhahib.
2. The Ibadhis and Mu'tazilis are not Sunni.

[Anonymous No.7384464]

>>7382581
>and yet Europeans actually saw the value of the idea rather than the denizens of the Islamic world.
Secularism was the norm for the Middle-East up to the Cold War. Fundamentalism took hold precisely because Western intervention and puppet-dictatorships wiped out secular movements. With no empowering force but religion, and with poverty, humiliation, and lack of education an ever increasing factor, the only platform is that of religion bolstered into a reactionary identity politics (which, of course, sacrifices the original ideology for the identity).