Jump to content
Haydar Husayn

Liberal 'Christians' have lost their minds

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

12 hours ago, andres said:

We are still Muslims, Jews and Christians. 

No Andres

We call ourselves Muslims, Jews and Christians but that is not who we are.

And that is the whole point I was trying to make.

We can call ourselves what we want.

But if we have changed the teachings of the founder, then we are following a modified version of the religion. 

In all honesty, we should give our modified faith a new name.

But we like to deceive the world. 

Unfortunately, we cannot deceive God.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, baqar said:

No Andres

We call ourselves Muslims, Jews and Christians but that is not who we are.

And that is the whole point I was trying to make.

We can call ourselves what we want.

But if we have changed the teachings of the founder, then we are following a modified version of the religion. 

In all honesty, we should give our modified faith a new name.

But we like to deceive the world. 

Unfortunately, we cannot deceive God.

So Shias follow Muhammed and Sunnies, Alawites, Wahabis and BokoHaram follow modified versions?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, andres said:

So Shias follow Muhammed and Sunnies, Alawites, Wahabis and BokoHaram follow modified versions?

It is not for me to decide who follows the modified version.

And I already told you earlier that I may not be a Muslim and you may not be a Christian in God's eyes.

I continue to believe that if people make changes and still claim to be following the religion they have changed, they are lying .   

Edited by baqar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, baqar said:

It is not for me to decide who follows the modified version.

And I already told you earlier that I may not be a Muslim and you may not be a Christian in God's eyes.

I continue to believe that if people make changes and still claim to be following the religion they have changed, they are lying .   

I sympathise with your position. There are many opinions how the Quran and Bible shall be understood. A fundamental Muslim living above the artic circle would starv himself to death rather than break Ramadan rules. More liberal ones would read the Quran differently. Being a Christian,  shall I believe Paul or James (the brother of Jesus)? Paul says circumcision is no longer necessary. But from Paul we know James believed it is. We do not know what Jesus thought. Very much is unclear in our holy Books, and as a result we have become divided into many different branches. But do you as a Shia not have a feeling that your belief is correct, that beliefs that contradict yours, like many Sunni and Christian beliefs, have been "modified", becoming heresies?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think some of the points you have made need to be explained.

Firstly, just because Muslims believe differently from one another in various matters does not make anyone a heretic.

The word 'Muslim' was defined by the Prophet as someone who believes in God and the Prophet. 

The reasons for the subsequent differences are essentially a historical development after the death of the Prophet.

Secondly, about Ramadan fasts in the Arctic region.

Even if the Prophet knew of this problem, there was little point in speaking about it.

Even if the public was smart enough to understand, with the multitude of other problems, it was hardly a top priority.

There were a lot more important things to attend to.

For problems such as these, the Prophet left us with a clear direction to consult with the most knowledgeable among us.

That is why we had our 11 Imams and now we are waiting for the 12th.

Until he comes, according to the Prophet's directives, we can make use of our scholars. 

There is NO change to the teachings of the Prophet involved.

Because there was no teaching on the subject.

So if someone starves himself to death, waiting for the sun to set, he is a very, very big fool.

He should talk to people who have the knowledge and understanding of Islam, for a suitable alternative.

There are many heaps of other problems like this.

Another example: in which direction should someone be on a spaceship during their prayers?     

Cheers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Naturally I understand that the Quran has not given instructions for Muslims moving to the arctic region 1.400 years later and that Muslims are intelligent people that find a solution to this and other problems that may arise. But Shia and Sunni leaders can differ when finding solutions to circumstances that the Quran has not foreseen. There is a reason that Islam has split into many different beliefs. Only one can be perfect, if any. When beliefs cross the limit of becoming heretic may be difficult to define. Same thing within Christianity

 

Edited by andres

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, baqar said:

That doesn't mean that the rest are all heretics.

They may be in the wrong but not necessarily heretics.

Please read my last post again.

I mainly agree with you. Just saying there is a limit where a religion becomes heretic. I may not agree with you where it is, but I have a strong feeling we both regard ISIS as herasy. But I understood you so that you mean heresy is when someone does not obey the written word of the Quran. But when the Quran is so unclear that Muslims understand it differently, like Shias and Sunnies sometimes do, this is excusable and therfore not heresy?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, andres said:

I have a strong feeling we both regard ISIS as heresy. 

ISIS is not Islam at all.

Not at all!

They are animals.   

49 minutes ago, andres said:

this is excusable and therefore not heresy?

Heresy is a very strong word invented by the Catholic church.

Anything they did not like they called heresy.

I believe that a good humble man will be acceptable to God even if he may be following the wrong religion.

I will not venture to call anyone a heretic.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ISIS have a very different interpreration of the Quran. As I understand the word 'heresy" , this is what ISIS must be to Shias and Sunnies, and what Sunnies and Shias and everybody else are to ISIS. I have also got the impression that some, (not you) , Shias regard Sunni as heresy and vice versa. If not, why all conflicts? Is this wrong?

Edited by andres

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, andres said:

Shias regard Sunni as heresy and vice versa.

Not at all.

Shias do NOT regard Sunnis as heretics.

And except for a very small minority, most Sunnis do not regard Shias as heretics.

Shia scholars have categorically told us that we can pray behind a Sunni Imam.

if they were heretics, that permission would not be possible.

Please note that in Islam, just because someone's beliefs are different from yours does not make him a heretic.

That was the attitude of the Catholic Church until about 400-500 years ago.

The word was invented by them to keep critics at arm's length and to denounce them fully.

It applies especially to the Catholic world-view especially in the olden days when the word was invented.

Even my dictionary makes a special reference to them. 

For them, anyone who differs becomes a heretic.

And that is why in the olden days, Protestants were considered heretics.

That principle cannot be extended to other religions.

And certainly not Islam.

Sorry!

10 hours ago, andres said:

 If not, why all conflicts? 

Just because there are conflicts does not mean that one side is a heretic.

We live in a very sad world.

Haven't you seen brothers fighting?

10 hours ago, andres said:

ISIS have a very different interpretation of the Quran. 

ISIS are worse than heretics.

Not because their interpretation is different but because it is a complete distortion of the truth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Andres 

1. The Quran uses two words for detractors and they are factual rather than contemptuous:

  • Kafir literally means one who covers and here it means one who covers (or rather denies) the truth. 
  • Munafiq refers to Muslims who were not sincere in their Islam, that is hypocrites.

The latter word is actually far more reprehensible, because it exposes an element of the hypocrite's character.

2. However, Shia scholars do not allow the use of either word for fellow-Muslims.

And as I told you in my last post, some Sunni Muslims do call Shias kafir.

These are the ones who belong to the Wahabi / Salafi and allied branches of Sunni Islam.

3. ISIS policies are supposed to be based on the Wahabi / Salafi principles, which teaches destruction of everything they don't like.

All the terrorists on 9/11 were Wahabis.

When the Wahabis did a lightning sweep of the Arabian peninsula in the early 1800's, they got as far as Iraq and destroyed Imam Husayn's holy shrine there. 

It was rebuilt later when they left. 

4. Saudi Arabia is also a country where the majority of the people are Wahabis / Salafis.

In 1925, the newly crowned Wahabi king of Saudi Arabia ordered all graves in the country be flattened.

This included the graves of Lady Fatima, the Prophet's daughter, and four Shia Imams. All the graves were located in the city of Medina. 

Even today, those graves are in a state of complete disrepair and the Saudi government refuses to restore them.

5. ISIS and Saudi Arabia both want to destroy Iran and Iraq, the two Shia majority nations in the world.

6. But there is a snag. 

ISIS and Saudi Arabia don't get along and you probably know why.

Because Saudi kings are afraid that if ISIS wins, they will replace the kingdom with their caliphate.

And the king will lose his crown and his trillions of dollars.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rushdie was not a scholar and like many Sunnis, he had no idea of the multiple versions of Islamic history.

And therefore it was seen as a clear attempt to denigrate the Prophet on the basis of ignorance.

And then he declared that he was not a Muslim. 

Criticism is a good thing but when it is made on the basis of ignorance, the only reason can be malice.

Anyway, I am not sure what words Khomeini used. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Being Christian, I would call him a heretic Muslim. Because he speaks against accepted Islamic belief.

Being a serious writer, I am sure he has studied the history, and the tradition of the heretic verses originates from early Islamic period.

Edited by andres

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Believing in the tradition I understand you say he is not a Muslim. Our language  differ. He may be an atheist, but with his background maybe I would define him a heretic Muslim. If he not converted to something else.

Edited by andres

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, baqar said:

How can an atheist also be a Muslim?

Sorry i don't understand.

Have you read his book, by the way.  

Culturally Muslim. Opposite of  orthodox Muslim. In between you have a wide spectre. This description was freely translated from Christianity. Maybe it cannot be applied on Islam.

I started reading the book some years ago. Did not finish. I did not know enough about Islam and Quran back then to understand what it was about. I probably still do not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×