VGL
Deity
Hey Sanguivorant, will you reply my arguments or no? Not that you should.
Ask a Muslim Youth
- Thread starter Sanguivorant
- Start date
HannibalBarka
We are Free
Yes it was during the Fatimids Califate. Fatimids are called so referring to Fatima, the Prophet's daughter, wife of Ali and mother of Hassan and Hussain. That being said, Egypt was the center of Shia Islam in the top level only, the Calife was shia, but most Egyptian were either Sunni or Coptes. Shia majority places were always Iraq, Iran, some place in the Gulf and southern Algeria
Sanguivorant
Submitter
Define "nice."I'm a fall-weather person, so I'm more comfortable in September/October than any other time of year.
Summer is okay, for the most part. There are dry spells, hot/humid spells, rainy spells, not usually a lot of flooding, and we've got a really good mosquito control program so they're not as much a problem here as they are in a lot of other cities. We get some windstorms and hailstorms, and while there hasn't been a bad tornado problem here within my memory, we've still had the odd touch down of one that caused some damage.
Ah, okay. I'm asking, because I really hate the weather in Calgary right now. It's too cold for me. I took my driving test two days ago, and I failed =(. I failed, because I did not have enough experience handling the acceleration and brake when the road is icy.
I will, but at this point, I don't think that we can agree on anything.
So if the Qur'an was still being written until after the Messenger's death, do you think it would support that there are two sects of Islam? Even if, the Qur'an would not support this Sunni Shi'a split.
Honestly, go get a copy of the Qur'an, in Farsi if you need, and try to find any verse that allows the division of the Muslim community, anywhere. If you can find one, then your assumption is correct.
The last pilgrimage. Yes, I am aware that Sunni's and Shi'as have different beliefs as to what Muhammad has said during this time. This is why I distrust Hadith a bit, because it leads to unnecessary arguments.
Abu Bakr did not claim that he was the leader. He was elected by a council of the Sahaba as well as some of the Ansar after the Messenger's death. Ali ibn Abi Talib also approved of his leadership, otherwise there would have been problems from the start.
This belief implies that some people are better than others and therefore should be granted more privilege without earning it. Also, if God gave some human beings knowledge, they can easily make a claim that they are infallible, when they can actually make mistakes. This kind of belief is what creates organizations such as the Catholic Church and whatnot. It leads to a whole lot of corruption.
If the Messenger claimed that Ali was the leader after him, then Ali would have made a big deal, as well as everyone else. Remember, the four Caliphs after Muhammad deeply respected him. They would have given Ali leadership without question.
What was small is this small political ramble over whether the leadership of the Muslim community should be elected or hereditary. Even this events of killing mean absolutely nothing to you or me in the modern era. We should not latch on to this past.
From what I know, they essentially combine the Noon and Afternoon prayer, and the Sunset and Night prayers. It is essentially praying 5 times a day, but combining.
I would hope that people are Muslim by choice. It makes them stronger in faith, even if it decreases the size of that population.
In a war between two Muslims, I really do not know what I would do. This is why I am torn when it comes to this Sunni-Shi'a conflict, or what is going on in Iraq at the moment.
It is this kind of attitude that stops progress.
And I am aware that you are secular. Perhaps the only reason you came to reply is because I defamed nationalism.
H4run
Deity
there were noticeable shia population in Iran and Iraq because of shia sacred places are happen to be located around there: Imam's grave, karballa, etc. However the population were still predominantly sunni, until the time of shah Ismail and the raise of Safavid, which he done a major inquisition to Sunni population (the first and last in Islamic history), and later on this get responded by Yavus Sultan Selim by oppressing shia population in order to retaliate the sunni persecution in Iran. Hence the shia population in today Turkey run to Iran, while Iranian suni population run to Turkey, and this makes Iran predominantly shia and Turkey predominantly sunni like we know today. And Iraq have a large shia population (however sunni also not a minority) just recently especially because the US intervention and the rise of shia ruling in Iraq as far as I know.
VGL
Deity
I will ask my religious teacher.
I'm not guessing this time because its official: you are leaning towards Sunni. This isn't a belief as Ali and other Imams had very high knowledge and didn't make mistakes. I'm sure that's in Quran or some official holy book. So they earned that privilege. Other asked them very hard questions and Ali answered them immediately. And this doesn't lead to corruption as unlike Catholics, They are only 12 imams and none of them are with us. 11 died and 1 is still with us but he is hidden. I think you're confusing Sunnis definition of imam and Shias definition of imam. imam in Shia means a holy person sent by god who has a high knowledge and never makes mistakes and they are they are the son of Ali.
Well, they did but not that much. And they where 3 caliphs after Muhammad and before Ali: Akbar, Omar and Osman and they didn't because they wanted power.
This event effected our lives. If Mahdi was present, then we could have advanced our science much more and evilness would decreased more according to Shias
Yeah. I forgot when where they.
Well, any pan Islamic state will be the worst idea cause it will never work. And what i meant from non Muslims allowed is that in the middle east, countries like Armenia and Georgia is allowed.
What kind of attitude? And yes, i came here because you defamed nationalism and replaced with something even worse. Sure, nationalism doesn't work and i agree. i'm more of a patriot than a nationalist. But sticking to a religious isn't a good idea and its far worse. One should fight for his country than his faith because people of the same faith fight while people in the nation barley fight. Plus, sticking to religious identity will cause much more division within a country.
Sanguivorant
Submitter
Have We not made for him two eyes? [90:8]
Shall I then seek a Ruler other than Allah? When He it is Who has revealed to you the Book (Quran, which is) distinctly detailed
(6:114)
If you are going to seek answers, it is all in the Qur'an. You do not need a human to interpret the Qur'an for you:
"Or do you think that most of them hear or reason? They are like livestock. Rather, they are [even] more astray in [their] way."
(25:44)
These so called religious teachers are being paid for memorizing words made by past individuals, from either Sunni or Shi'a. It is in their best interests that you consider them as infallible or correct, otherwise they would have no power/authority.
When talking about Islam, the most credible arguments to me are those that directly quote the Qur'an. Everything else is secondary.
Even the Messenger made mistakes. This is not something I believe in, because only Allah is infallible.
If you say something is in the Qur'an, you have to cite it, otherwise I cannot be convinced.
It leads to corruption, because you are essentially saying that some people are born to be rulers, or in other words, they have a Divine Right to rule. This is corrupt, because Divine Right only belongs to Allah, and because humankind makes mistakes, the best/only way to represent the Divine Right of Allah is to seek the counsel of everyone that will be affected by a decision.
Believing that they are infallible does not make them infallible. I think this is what we disagree on the most.
I know that Sunnis and Shi'as have different opinions of these three individuals. For the most part, they were accepted by the majority of the Sahaba and Muslims to be rulers. If not, there would have been a major problem in there somewhere.
We can argue about the incident with Osman, because that one is a bit detailed.
This is a very fatalist kind of thinking, that only if one individual was present, then all problems would be solved. We cannot wait for a saviour. We must act ourselves.
If they want to join the federation, they should be allowed to. I don't see a problem with that.
"Indeed this, your religion [Ummah], is one religion [Ummah], and I am your Lord, so worship Me. And [yet] they divided their affair among themselves, [but] all to Us will return." [21:92-23]
The Qur'an uses the word Ummah to mean religion, and Ummah also means community. So our Community is one Community. The Qur'an asks for this, not me.
People fight all the time because of national or ethnic loyalties.
Also, what makes you think that all Iranians are one nation? I am pretty sure there are other Peoples within Iran that consider themselves a different nationality.
In a world stage that is run by political nationalism, you will constantly run into problems, and the world might be divided into thousands of countries. States need to be made on the basis of peoples all agreeing on the same principles, sort of like most western liberal democracies.
Ziggy Stardust
Absolutely Sane
Guys, don't you fellers sort these kind of things out when you're in your annual: "this is how real Muslims think" meetings?
There seem to be a lot of people who think these meetings take place, so it's a genuine question aimed to inform those Traditional Antagonists who think all Muslims have their Muslimisms aligned.
There seem to be a lot of people who think these meetings take place, so it's a genuine question aimed to inform those Traditional Antagonists who think all Muslims have their Muslimisms aligned.
jackelgull
An aberration of nature
Muslims gather together, that's true, but there are no specific meetings that take place to discuss, this is our stance on issue x y and z. Imams do try to promote agendas though, using the Quran or the Prophet's life to back this up, but that isn't really that common. The closest thing that I can think of is when before Ishaa or Friday prayers, the imam will read a hadith and lecture on its meaning and how we should apply it in our daily lives, but I'm not sure if this counts, anymore than a Christian Sunday meeting counts as brainwashing.
jackelgull
An aberration of nature
So? Society brainwashes people all the time to follow its moral code. I'm not going to complain if it brainwashes people into believing that murder is wrong. Actually I think brainwash is too negative a connotation for this. Unfortunately, I can't think of a better word.
warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
Indoctrinate is the word you're looking for, I think.
It has a negative connotation too, but it seems to fit the bill.
Sanguivorant
Submitter
Indeed, those who believed and those who were Jews or Christians or Sabeans [before Prophet Muhammad] - those [among them] who believed in Allah and the Last Day and did righteousness - will have their reward with their Lord, and no fear will there be concerning them, nor will they grieve. [2:62]
For other religions, the perspective is that whoever was not aware of Islam is not accountable for it:
...Allah does not charge a soul except [according to] what He has given it. Allah will bring about, after hardship, ease. [65:7]
As a result, that woman or that man who lived in North America in 1000 A.D, before having knowledge of Islam is not accountable for that. They will be tested in other means.
Now this begs the question, "How much of Islam do you need to know before you are accountable for not following it?"
I can only show the two extremes.
On one extreme, you could claim that just by hearing about Islam, you are accountable if you did not explore it and research about it.
On the other extreme, you could claim that someone would need to know a practising Muslim and know exactly what Islam is all about before being accountable to it.
Also, what about the person that only knows Islam from lies that someone else has told them, and those lies are what that person dislikes? Then, they are not accountable until they know exactly what Islam is.
jackelgull
An aberration of nature
I remember what my imam said about spreading false information on Islam- on the day of judgement, if you are guilty of this, then you shoulder the sins of the person you misinformed. It is why I hesitate to say anything on this thread, if I accidentally spread misinformation, then I could be punished for it.
HannibalBarka
We are Free
Yes and no. One should indeed try to understand his religion directly from the source (Quran in this case), but it's not always easy to understand the verses and some time one need to be assisted by specialists. Theology (of Islam or any other religion) is a "science" and like one need help from Mathematicians to understand math and Chemists to understand chemistry, one usually need help from scholars of Islam to understand Islam.
You may think The Prophet was infallible, you still think he was a special man and one that was born to rule because Allah decide so. Why would the Shia belief that other people would be chosen as well the same way (or almost the same way) be less "Islam compatible"?
Thing is there were problems with all but Abu Bakr. Omar and Osman were both killed.
Same as above. You still as a Muslim think Mohammad birth "saved" the world in the meaning that it did a lot of good to human kind though humans should still work hard to "advance". Shia think that other people (the Imams) have a kind of similar role.
Quran acknowledge that there will be divisions as well. There is nothing in the Quran asking for a political community, all is there is about religious community. We are all part of the Human community, that does not mean that we need to be one country. Muslim community (Umma) has no clear political meaning in the Quran. It is actually more hadith based.
People will fight no matter what, that's what History taught us, Religion is no less a cause for wars than nationalism, ethnicity or more often just greed (I want your house, money, wife or business and I'll kill you to have that is as old as mankind). Saying therefore that a religious based political entity is going to work better is pure utopia and has been proved wrong all along History. You may wish Muslims to agree on the same principles, fact is that they don't.
Let me understand this. You might have a chance at a job in Red Deer, and are asking what the weather is like here in the summer because you failed your winter driving test in Calgary...
Wouldn't it be more prudent to ask what winters are like in Red Deer? 'Cause they're not like the winters in Calgary.
We do get some of the chinook effect when Calgary does, but not as pronounced, or for as long. It can get awfully cold here at times, and the snow removal system consists of doing the emergency routes, main roads, hills, and bus routes first, and everything else only when it's either impassible for emergency vehicles or when enough angry people phone or email City Hall.I don't drive, but it seems to me that of all the times of the year to learn or take your test, winter makes the most sense, because it's the most difficult to handle in this part of the world. And you need winter driving skills to cope with highway travel, so you don't end up in the ditch or worse.
Personally I find Calgary warmer than Red Deer, but there's the downside of Calgary having more air pollution. I guess it's a matter of deciding what you're willing to put up with and what would be a dealbreaker.
VGL
Deity
Yes and no. One should indeed try to understand his religion directly from the source (Quran in this case), but it's not always easy to understand the verses and some time one need to be assisted by specialists. Theology (of Islam or any other religion) is a "science" and like one need help from Mathematicians to understand math and Chemists to understand chemistry, one usually need help from scholars of Islam to understand Islam.
You may think The Prophet was infallible, you still think he was a special man and one that was born to rule because Allah decide so. Why would the Shia belief that other people would be chosen as well the same way (or almost the same way) be less "Islam compatible"?
Thing is there were problems with all but Abu Bakr. Omar and Osman were both killed.
Same as above. You still as a Muslim think Mohammad birth "saved" the world in the meaning that it did a lot of good to human kind though humans should still work hard to "advance". Shia think that other people (the Imams) have a kind of similar role.
Quran acknowledge that there will be divisions as well. There is nothing in the Quran asking for a political community, all is there is about religious community. We are all part of the Human community, that does not mean that we need to be one country. Muslim community (Umma) has no clear political meaning in the Quran. It is actually more hadith based.
People will fight no matter what, that's what History taught us, Religion is no less a cause for wars than nationalism, ethnicity or more often just greed (I want your house, money, wife or business and I'll kill you to have that is as old as mankind). Saying therefore that a religious based political entity is going to work better is pure utopia and has been proved wrong all along History. You may wish Muslims to agree on the same principles, fact is that they don't.
Well said.
H4run
Deity
You are right regarding shia and sunni have different principle. In sunni we only believe that Quran is infallible, and we use the shahih hadith to articulate the Quran which without it some of the order cannot be precisely articulate, for example the order of performing salat: how many series (rakaah) we should perform, and how we should perform it, etc, the Quran don't talk about that, but it is been teach to us by the prophet with his hadith. While the third thing that we used to articulate the Quran is the practice of the early 3 generation of Muslim. However these does not mean both the prophet or the companion are infallible, even though the Quran mention that the prophet never said anything by his whims which mean he stated everything in accordance to guidance from Allah, however sometime he do commit mistake in his action which we can found in some passage of the Quran which Allah warn him for his mistake. Hence that makes him human.
In the other hand the shia think the Imam is infallible, this is the core doctrine of the shia, everything that coming out from the Imam from his words till his spit (I read it like that) is pure. According to shia people cannot understand the Quran without the guidance of these Imam. I agree with brother Sanguivorant's criticism regarding that 100%, however without that shia is not shia, in this context I agree with you, this is their core principle, so I guess living side by side with shia mean we must accept this part of them. Which it's happen during the time of many sunni caliphate, the Ottoman for example has a special courts for several shia denomination one of them is jaffari, the shia under Ottoman don't regulate themselves by the Sunni shariah but by their own law system. Hence that prove unity under one ummah as brother Sanguivorant addressed is historically possible, and he is right about that.
The other things is brother Sanguivorant concern regarding nationalism, this is not baseless. Nationalism is a form of asabiyah, which the prophet said it as the coal of hell fire. And this disunity is what the prophet try to put an end during his time, by uniting all different group of people under one banner, by changing brotherhood tie that is define by family relation, nationality and tribes, to brotherhood tie that is define by faith. Hence it is internationalist and quite anti-nationalism.
