Jump to content

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

On 9/23/2017 at 1:19 AM, SunniBrother said:

lol. Yes sometimes I fail to back up my claims, but if you research you'll see where I am coming from. Brother I am not Wikipedia having all references and links and sources to drop whenever people ask. A lot of Muslim scholars make claim as well, when you go to Khutba they usually talk without referring to texts, how do you know all scholars are truthful? When you ask a fatwa they give a fatwa give a reference here and there, I bet you can't even tell if that's true or not because you don't have their books to check if they are making up or telling you something stupid. If you want to build your religion upon a bunch of texts based approach perhaps you could go full Salafi, this is where you need to get out of the Taqlid I Aqeedah and Hadith based thinking.

if you make baseless claims, i will make the exact opposite claim. for example, if you say imam ahmad said something, i will say he said the opposite of that. if you dont know your source, you are done for right there. for all you know, i could be right and you could be wrong. and i certainly wont take back what i say. so, to avoid all the hassle every time, i ask you to present the source with the evidence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/23/2017 at 1:01 PM, Faruk said:

Then  you should use the arguments Allah gave to us through that same Quran,

You can tell them there is a sanad but then still they could ask you but then how you know Muhammad s.a.w.a.s. is a Prophet?

This sanad argument is invented to give ahaadith, sunni ahaadith in this case the same credibility as the Quran itself.

Above all the sanad doesn't make the content of that what is transmitted more truthful or not.

It's the message itself that should be judged.

you are being circular here. i am asking you how do you know this book is the quran. and you are saying that you know this book is the quran because this book says so. you cant use the subject to prove itself. 

i am not your normal sunni. i do not believe that just because the sanad is authentic it grants the hadith the same status as the quran. Allah promised to protect the dhikr i.e. the quran. no such promise exists for hadith. so, you can stop preaching that to me.

i am saying that the sanad gets us from today to 1400 years ago. as for Muhammad saw being a prophet, then that is our belief because of the amazingness of the quran, among other things. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Salsabeel said:

:bismillah:

Surah Al-Anaam, Verse 122:

أَوَمَن كَانَ مَيْتًا فَأَحْيَيْنَاهُ وَجَعَلْنَا لَهُ نُورًا يَمْشِي بِهِ فِي النَّاسِ كَمَن مَّثَلُهُ فِي الظُّلُمَاتِ لَيْسَ بِخَارِجٍ مِّنْهَا كَذَٰلِكَ زُيِّنَ لِلْكَافِرِينَ مَا كَانُوا يَعْمَلُونَ

 

Surah Yunus, Verse 100:

وَمَا كَانَ لِنَفْسٍ أَن تُؤْمِنَ إِلَّا بِإِذْنِ اللَّهِ وَيَجْعَلُ الرِّجْسَ عَلَى الَّذِينَ لَا يَعْقِلُونَ

 

where does this define imaan as what the other guy said? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, just a muslim said:

who said anything about ahadith? stop making assumptions that i am trying to justify ahadtih using the quran. i am simply asking about the quran for it's own reasons. not for hadith. the two questions i asked are completely unrelated. 

the quran does not need any human sciences to be true. nobody said that. tell me this. what do you mean when you say Qur'an?

Well I'm sorry brother.

The questions you asked were connected to eachother in a Quranite - Ahlul Hadith discussion once in Speakers Corner.

My apologies for my prejudgment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, just a muslim said:

you are being circular here. i am asking you how do you know this book is the quran. and you are saying that you know this book is the quran because this book says so. you cant use the subject to prove itself. 

Well I read the Bible and then the Quran several times and I discovered that the questions and inconsistencies I found in the Bible while still a christian were perfectly and clearly anwsered by the Quran. Not like the nowadays Bible that tells us to believe in the Trinity without a clear explanation.

You forgot to mention that I stated that the Quran is the only Sacred Book that challenges us to use reason to find the truth. That is no circular reasoning but the opposite.  

Just as Prophet Ibrahim a.s. did not use the Word of Allah but reason and logic to convince his people and the tyrants of his time how wrong they were.

 

Edited by Faruk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Faruk said:

Well I'm sorry brother.

The questions you asked were connected to eachother in a Quranite - Ahlul Hadith discussion once in Speakers Corner.

My apologies for my prejudgment.

it's okay.

let me rephrase my questions to make it simple and precise for you guys. 

1. how was the quran compiled, according to shi'i belief?

2. how do you know how to recite the quran?

as a cross reference, i will give you the sunni answers for both questions.

1. the quran was compiled first by abu bakr, he gave the mushaf to umar. who gave it to hafsa, his daughter.second compilation was done by uthman. he compiled it all over again and it matched with the mushaf with hafsa. the mushaf compiled by uthman, mushaf e uthmani, is available to us even today in the same exact form in at least two places. the museum in turkey and in russia. apart from the differences in script, it is the same quran we have today, word by word. letter by letter.

2. the mushaf of uthman is a written book. but quran is also recited. so, how do we know how to recite it? because the mushaf of uthman hasnt got the vowel signs i.e. fath, damma and kasra or the zeyr, zabar and paysh. we still know how to recite it. how? because we have numerous/mutawatir chains of narrations that go back to the prophet pbuh of the entire recital of the quran. 

i am looking for the shi'i version of my questions/answers.

Edited by just a muslim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, just a muslim said:

thats fine. 

let me rephrase my questions to make it simple and precise for you guys. 

1. how was the quran compiled, according to shi'i belief?

2. how do you know how to recite the quran?

as a cross reference, i will give you the sunni answers for both questions.

1. the quran was compiled first by abu bakr, he gave the mushaf to umar. who gave it to hafsa, his daughter.second compilation was done by uthman. he compiled it all over again and it matched with the mushaf with hafsa. the mushaf compiled by uthman, mushaf e uthmani, is available to us even today in the same exact form in at least two places. the museum in turkey and in russia. apart from the differences in script, it is the same quran we have today, word by word. letter by letter.

2. the mushaf of uthman is a written book. but quran is also recited. so, how do we know how to recite it? because the mushaf of uthman hasnt got the vowel signs i.e. fath, damma and kasra or the zeyr, zabar and paysh. we still know how to recite it. how? because we have numerous/mutawatir chains of narrations that go back to the prophet pbuh of the entire recital of the quran. 

i am looking for the shi'i version of my questions/answers.

Good question! Looking forward for the anwser.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, just a muslim said:

where does this define imaan as what the other guy said? 

Death has been used in this verse in the sense of the absence of the light of faith, and life in the sense of a fully aware conscience guiding the soul to the right path; but wherever the "bringing of the dead to life" is mentioned in the Quran this interpretation (an ignorant disbeliever is shown light to make him a believer) does not apply.

Lets see few more verses, if you are still  not sure that emaan is light:

وَمَن لَّمْ يَجْعَلِ اللَّهُ لَهُ نُورًا فَمَا لَهُ مِن نُّورٍ

24:40

 

مَا كُنتَ تَدْرِي مَا الْكِتَابُ وَلَا الْإِيمَانُ وَلَكِن جَعَلْنَاهُ نُورًا

42:52

Share this post


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

Good question! Looking forward for the anwser.

1. personally i believe the Prophet tasked the compilation of the Quran into book form to imam ali (as).

2. i learned it thru a quranic teacher.

i found the link below quite an interesting read.

http://www.shiapen.com/questions/separating-quran-from-family.html

Share this post


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

1. personally i believe the Prophet tasked the compilation of the Quran into book form to imam ali (as).

2. i learned it thru a quranic teacher.

i found the link below quite an interesting read.

http://www.shiapen.com/questions/separating-quran-from-family.html

1. well, the thing is, belief is subjective. you may believe that. but someone else may believe the opposite of that. unless either side can back up their belief, there is no point to state beliefs.

2. how did that teacher know how to recite the quran

 

did you read the link? all of it? i would be more than happy to discuss it. most of it is simply conjecture. no evidence is provided. just a big conspiracy theory of sorts. and the references are to books written by people, which i dont care about. i care about references to the quran and hadith. besides, shah wali ullah in his last book hujjat ullah al baalighah made ruju' from all his previous works, books and beliefs. 

there are a few ahadith mentioned too. some have been made out to sound troubling. while the others actually do sound troubling at face value. but even if one were to assume that all these "accusations" were true, that still wouldnt mean the conjecture made through out the article is true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Salsabeel said:

Death has been used in this verse in the sense of the absence of the light of faith, and life in the sense of a fully aware conscience guiding the soul to the right path; but wherever the "bringing of the dead to life" is mentioned in the Quran this interpretation (an ignorant disbeliever is shown light to make him a believer) does not apply.

the verse says he was dead so we gave him life and made/provided for him a light. getting life is equivalent to iman. the light, by which he walks, is the quran or islam. 

i dont understand the last part of what you said.

 

regardless, he said we have iman that quran is Allah's word. i dont disagree with him. my question was, and is, how do we, or rather the shi'a, know the book today is the quran. that no additions were made to it. nothing removed from it? saying that it is your belief or iman then that belief or iman is not necessarily in quran, but rather in the book that we have today. if you claim this is the quran, you have to prove it, by explaining how it was compiled. you dont have to answer that if you think it is a waste of time. i dont mind waiting for others.

Edited by just a muslim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, just a muslim said:

getting life is equivalent to iman. the light, by which he walks, is the quran or islam. 

:) You are saying that emaan comes first and Islam comes afterwards? Lets see another verse so that the matter of emaan with Qalb gets clear to you, as well as which thing comes first:

قَالَتِ الْأَعْرَابُ آمَنَّا قُل لَّمْ تُؤْمِنُوا وَلَكِن قُولُوا أَسْلَمْنَا وَلَمَّا يَدْخُلِ الْإِيمَانُ فِي قُلُوبِكُمْ
49:14

36 minutes ago, just a muslim said:

my question was, and is, how do we, or rather the shi'a, know the book today is the quran. that no additions were made to it. nothing removed from it?

I think you have discussed this matter with me on PM's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, just a muslim said:

1. well, the thing is, belief is subjective. you may believe that. but someone else may believe the opposite of that. unless either side can back up their belief, there is no point to state beliefs.

salam bro,

thanks for reminding. however, mine is quite well-founded, like so:

There is no dispute among Muslim scholars, whether they are Sunni or Shi’a, concerning the fact that the Commander of Believers, ‘Ali (as), possessed a special transcript of the text of Qur’an which he had collected himself, and he was THE FIRST who compiled Qur’an.

https://www.al-islam.org/shiite-encyclopedia-ahlul-bayt-dilp-team/belief-shia-in-completeness-quran#qur’-compiled-imam-‘ali

1 hour ago, just a muslim said:

2. how did that teacher know how to recite the quran

he learnt it from his teacher.:grin: 

dear bro, i believe all information is already out there somewhere. the best thing to do is to listen to _all_ words and follow the best of them. may Allah guides us all to the right path.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Salsabeel said:

:) You are saying that emaan comes first and Islam comes afterwards? Lets see another verse so that the matter of emaan with Qalb gets clear to you, as well as which thing comes first:

قَالَتِ الْأَعْرَابُ آمَنَّا قُل لَّمْ تُؤْمِنُوا وَلَكِن قُولُوا أَسْلَمْنَا وَلَمَّا يَدْخُلِ الْإِيمَانُ فِي قُلُوبِكُمْ
49:14

I think you have discussed this matter with me on PM's.

this verse is about the hypocrites. 

and yes. which is why i said i dont expect an answer from you :)

Share this post


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

salam bro,

thanks for reminding. however, mine is quite well-founded, like so:

There is no dispute among Muslim scholars, whether they are Sunni or Shi’a, concerning the fact that the Commander of Believers, ‘Ali (as), possessed a special transcript of the text of Qur’an which he had collected himself, and he was THE FIRST who compiled Qur’an.

https://www.al-islam.org/shiite-encyclopedia-ahlul-bayt-dilp-team/belief-shia-in-completeness-quran#qur’-compiled-imam-‘ali

he learnt it from his teacher.:grin: 

dear bro, i believe all information is already out there somewhere. the best thing to do is to listen to _all_ words and follow the best of them. may Allah guides us all to the right path.

if Ali had a transcript, where is it today? do we have it today so that we can compare it with the one we do have?

 

yes. i realized that. i am asking if the shia also have isnads going back to the prophet pbuh. and it may seem obvious to you. but i am looking for proof/knowledge of it. because i have a follow up question on that. 

yes. tried to look for this information but couldnt find it. hence came here.

ameen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, just a muslim said:

this verse is about the hypocrites. 

Hmm, so you think God's policy is different for hypocrites. Non hypocrite recieve emaan first & Islam later. Lets see another verse for understanding this issue:

فَمَن يُرِدِ اللّهُ أَن يَهْدِيَهُ يَشْرَحْ صَدْرَهُ لِلإِسْلاَمِ 

6:125

And here is full verse with translation:

Surah Al-Anaam, Verse 125:

فَمَن يُرِدِ اللَّهُ أَن يَهْدِيَهُ يَشْرَحْ صَدْرَهُ لِلْإِسْلَامِ وَمَن يُرِدْ أَن يُضِلَّهُ يَجْعَلْ صَدْرَهُ ضَيِّقًا حَرَجًا كَأَنَّمَا يَصَّعَّدُ فِي السَّمَاءِ كَذَٰلِكَ يَجْعَلُ اللَّهُ الرِّجْسَ عَلَى الَّذِينَ لَا يُؤْمِنُونَ

Therefore (for) whomsoever Allah intends that He would guide him aright, He expands his breast for Islam, and (for) whomsoever He intends that He should cause him to err, He makes his breast strait and narrow as though he were ascending upwards; thus does Allah lay uncleanness on those who do not believe.

(English - Shakir)

15 minutes ago, just a muslim said:

and yes. which is why i said i dont expect an answer from you :)

:) I was wondering to share that discussions here on this thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, just a muslim said:

i am not talking about tahreef. i want to know the shia view of the compilation of the quran. how they say it was compiled. not that it is complete. 

Response has been given that  you asked for.

Regards

Edited by skyweb1987

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, just a muslim said:

if Ali had a transcript, where is it today? do we have it today so that we can compare it with the one we do have

Sorry brother your earlier caliphs  missed the chance to make its comparison when they rejected and denied the Quran complied by Imam Ali. 

Edited by skyweb1987

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, skyweb1987 said:

Response has been given that  you asked for.

Regards

where?

2 hours ago, skyweb1987 said:

Sorry brother your earlier caliphs  missed the chance to make its comparison when they rejected and denied the Quran complied by Imam Ali. 

and how would you answer if a shia asked you that? do you have Ali's copy today to compare it to what we have today?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Abbas. said:

 

salam brother.

i read the questions you posted to your scholars and to be honest, you hit the nail on the head. these are exactly some of the questions i am looking answers for, and not just from shias. very similar questions apply to sunni literature as well. did you get any response to the questions where you were told that it is better to answer you in person? it would be really really helpful if you did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 21/09/2017 at 3:26 AM, just a muslim said:

i have a few questions and hope some knowledgeable brother can answer these.

1. can you explain the shia usul e hadith? in brief for now. especially how you guys check the sanad and matn and reject whatever goes against the quran.

2. how do you know the quran that we have today is the same quran that was revealed to the prophet pbuh? is it just a belief, like christians believe the bible is the true word of god that jesus preached or whatever. or do you have proof that the quran today is the same quran 1438 years ago. and jbtw, this has nothing to do with tahreef, in case anyone goes there. i am coming from a different point of view. 

just these two for now. a lot more to follow inshaAllah.

2. Which qira'ah are you referring to? You may claim they are all authentic transmissions of the Qur'an, but this claim doesn't hold water when scrutinised. As for us, the two weighty things ie the quran and ahlulbayt go hand in hand, the correct qira'ah is preserved with them in the narrations.

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


  • Recent Posts on ShiaChat!

    • Yes they are considered Muslims but not Mo'mins. Surah Al-Insan, Verse 8:
      وَيُطْعِمُونَ الطَّعَامَ عَلَىٰ حُبِّهِ مِسْكِينًا وَيَتِيمًا وَأَسِيرًا And they give food out of love for Him to the poor and the orphan and the captive:
      (English - Shakir) Surah Al-Insan, Verse 9:
      إِنَّمَا نُطْعِمُكُمْ لِوَجْهِ اللَّهِ لَا نُرِيدُ مِنكُمْ جَزَاءً وَلَا شُكُورًا We only feed you for Allah's sake; we desire from you neither reward nor thanks:
      (English - Shakir) A true mo'min always act to seek the nearness (qurbat) of Allah because he loves Allah (s.w.t).  In the same chapter, you will find a verse mentioning people who love this worldly life: Surah Al-Insan, Verse 27:
      إِنَّ هَٰؤُلَاءِ يُحِبُّونَ الْعَاجِلَةَ وَيَذَرُونَ وَرَاءَهُمْ يَوْمًا ثَقِيلًا Surely these love the transitory and neglect a grievous day before them.
      (English - Shakir) @hasanhh, @Chaotic Muslem
    • frankly, i think it's the (takfiri) wahhabis that's causing havoc in muslim lands. let's not quarrel among ourselves. [8:46].....do not quarrel for then you will be weak in hearts and your power will depart,..... let's not misled others [16:25] Let them bear, on the Day of Judgment, their own burdens in full, and also (something) of the burdens of those without knowledge, whom they misled. Alas, how grievous the burdens they will bear! don't have to unite. but let's strive as in a race with one another, towards good deeds [5:48]....therefore strive with one another to hasten to virtuous deeds; to Allah is your return, of all (of you), so He will let you know that in which you differed;  
    • A Christian Nation? Ryan LaMothe Photo by Forsaken Fotos | CC BY 2.0 Over the years I have often heard Christians of various political stripes assert that the United States is a Christian nation. More recently, Christian evangelicals, who supported Trump and his campaign slogan of “Make America Great Again,” seemed nostalgic for a white Christian America. One might be tempted to call the belief that the U.S. is a Christian nation a myth, the seeds of which were sown in 1630 when John Winthrop challenged his community to establish a city on the hill, reflecting the covenant of God and Christian charity. Many myths contain a grain or two of truth. Nevertheless, the belief in a Christian nation is more illusion than truth. This might be a provocative claim to many people that requires justification. Let me begin by acknowledging that most of the people who immigrated to America, taking native peoples’ lands, were primarily of various Christian denominations. Some saw this country as the new Promised Land, overlooking the fact that by occupying the land they removed any possibility of promise to the non-Christian people who lived here for millennia. So, I am willing to concede that white European settlers were mainly Christian. This was also true after the War of Independence and in this sense one might say this was a Christian nation in that most of the settlers called themselves Christian. I will come back to this, but for now let me say that this new “Christian nation” was clearly neither a Christian theocracy not a parliamentary system advocating a particular religion. Indeed, the Constitution enshrined the free exercise of religion, while establishing a wall between church and state. If we were to call this budding nation a Christian nation, it was oddly one that proclaimed the freedom of individuals to practice other religions—at least ideally—or no religion at all. Proclaiming the inalienable right of religious freedom would leave open the possibility that another religion might be dominant, which would mean we would no longer be a “Christian nation.” While some people cite numbers or percentage of Christians as a reason for calling the U.S. a Christian nation, others have argued that the U.S. is a Christian nation because it was founded by Christians and, therefore, some of their beliefs and principles were woven into the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.  In reality, the Magna Carta and English Bill of Rights influenced those who penned the Constitution. Also, House Congressional Resolution 331 (1988) acknowledged the influence of the Iroquois Confederacy of Nations in writing the U.S. Constitution.  To be sure there are references to God in the Declaration of Independence, but not in the Constitution, which is not to deny that Christian principles, to some degree, shaped the writing of the Constitution, though it is not entirely clear which principles. More apparent is the secular political influences that shaped founding texts. Indeed, it is more accurate to say the U.S. was founded on English and Enlightenment political values. This will not deter those who will insist that since most colonial and later U.S. citizens nation were Christian, then the U.S. was, by and large, a Christian nation. Fast forward to the present and polls indicate that approximately 84% of people in the U.S. identify as Christians. So, our stalwart believer may proclaim that we are still a Christian nation by percentages alone.  Of course, we might look more closely at those numbers to discover that many of those who self-identify as Christians do not actually belong to a Christian community of faith. In some polling less than 38% of Christians actually go to church. What percentage do we rely on for being a Christian nation—51% or above of those who believe in Christ? Or do we count those who are actually practicing their Christian faith? If it is the latter, then we do not qualify as a Christian nation. Percentages and numbers, though, are hardly adequate measures for determining whether we are a Christian nation or not. It would seem fairer to consider not so much belief, but whether the majority of citizens and their elected representatives embody and live out core principles associated with Christianity. This would be akin to considering whether the claim that we are a democratic nation is valid based on whether citizens and institutions uphold and live out the principles and practices of democracy. Do citizens act in democratic ways? Are there state and non-state institutions that uphold democratic values and principles? Let’s shift to whether we are a “Christian” nation. Do citizens and elected officials adhere to the core principles of Christianity as reflected in the life and ministry of Jesus Christ? Do state and non-state institutions promote Christian principles and practices? The simple answer is no, but it is important to at least identify a few key principles of Christianity. It is apparent in any cursory reading of history that there are various renderings of what it means to live a Christian life. Yet, it is safe to say that the ministry of Jesus Christ incarnates the love and compassion of God, which includes mercy and forgiveness. As Karen Armstrong (1993) notes, the three Abrahamic faiths elevate compassion as a central principle for living a religious life. If we consider love, compassion, mercy, and forgiveness as central principles of being a Christian, then it is evident that these principles are less about mere belief than they are about actions or practices. I think most individual Christians and communities of faith, if they are honest, would say that they fall short of living out these principles. Indeed, Kierkegaard, surveying the landscape of Christian Europe, asked whether a Christian could be found in all of Christendom. No doubt he was aware of how far he and others fail to live out and up to Jesus Christ. More importantly, his query was not just about individuals, but calling Christendom itself into question. Individuals who call themselves Christian should be assessed in terms of the principles of Christianity, not so much to deny their identity, but to indicate to what degree they live out this faith. Those of us who call ourselves Christian know we do not measure up, yet we retain a Christian identity. When individuals use the term Christian to describe their nation, which includes identity, then it is fair game to use the principles as criteria. What does it mean to be called a Christian nation given the violent appropriation of land from Native Americans, which may rightly be called ethnic cleansing? Our ruthless treatment of Native peoples, which continues today, seems a far cry from any Christian principle. Consider how many American Christians legitimated slavery, Jim Crow, and racism. By what Christian principle do these fall under? The exploitation of Cuban, Philippine, and Central American peoples during the decades when the U.S. was a colonial power seems more in line with the principles of the Roman Empire than Christian values. The fire bombings of Dresden and Tokyo and the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of civilians. Has the U.S. ever asked for forgiveness for these acts?  This kind of sociopathic brutality is a far cry from Christian compassion, though it is important to acknowledge that Christian communities perpetrated if not supported brutal actions (e.g., lynching). Let’s turn to the killing of around 2 million Vietnamese, which was more in line with the principles of realpolitik than Christian justice. Speaking of justice, read Acts and ask how Christian is it to have huge income and wealth disparities, millions of people without healthcare or inadequate healthcare, food deserts, and 7 million people in the penal system. Does this so-called Christian nation embody or even uphold any of the core values of Christianity? If this is not enough to dissuade people from calling the U.S. a Christian nation, I also raise the fact that I am not sure any nation could be Christian, except in only one sense and that is the view that we are a Christian nation because most citizens self-identify as Christian. That said, it is crucial to recognize that while religious communities can hold forth about their Christian values and principles vis-à-vis organizing the life of the community, nations abide by other principles, principles more in line with Machiavelli and Clausewitz, rather than Christ. To be sure, Constantine launched the West onto the idea of a Christian state, but this idea seemed to be far from anything Jesus had in mind. Moreover, Christ’s motivation, if I can talk about his motivation, seemed to be more about compassion, feeding the poor, healing the sick, etc., than it was about founding a nation. In short, Jesus’ kingdom is not to be found on earth, even though the kingdom of God is among us in acts of love, mercy, compassion, and forgiveness. These are virtues that are inimical the advancement of a nation state, let alone, an empire. So, let’s be honest and acknowledge that the U.S. and its government do not and, perhaps, cannot uphold Christian principles in organizing social or international relations. For this reason, we cannot claim the U.S. is a Christian nation. But I am not sanguine about people accepting this, especially those Christian individuals who are more likely to think of themselves as staunch patriots. By adhering to this belief, more accurately an illusion, they avoid facing the fact that the fundamental principles that actually operate in state-craft, namely, ruthless, rational calculation in the advancement of U.S. economic and political interests, are contrary to Christian principles used to organize the first Christian communities, namely sacrificial love, compassion, forgiveness, and distribution of resources according to needs. I also think there are a few other reasons why many Christian Americans are steadfast in their belief that the U.S. is a Christian nation. First, Christianity has long been the dominant religious tradition in this country and has become, for many, intertwined with a national identity. Even if people recognize that one can be American and from other faith traditions, patriotic Christians’ identity is wedded to national identity. To begin to believe we are not a Christian nation can evoke anxiety and rage because it is a threat to that identity. A second reason for retaining this illusion is that it deflects one from the inherent cruelty of the state’s actions (e.g., drone warfare and the killing of civilians, policing the poor). Even when we find ways to justify violence (e.g., they attacked us first—just war), we can continue to hold out that we are Christian nation. “Christian” denotes something good, unsullied by our excesses. It is analogous to someone saying, after being cruel to someone, “All have sinned. I know this as a Christian and that God still loves me.” Pasting the title Christian over the notion of the state or nation is like trying to cover over the indelible stain of our national sins. Third and relatedly, to come face to face with ourselves, as Carl Jung noted, is a terrible shock for we will see how far we really are from our cherished ideals of ourselves. Our shared histories, which undergird our shared identities, are, more often than not, facades that screen the reality of wrong on the throne and right on the scaffold (Niebuhr, 1941, p. 40).  Better to hold onto the soporific illusions of the title “Christian” than to face our collective past and present sins. As James Baldwin noted Americans “have the most remarkable ability to alchemize all bitter truths into an innocuous but piquant confection and to transform their moral contradictions, into a proud decoration” (1955, p.31)—the proud decoration that we are a Christian nation. Baldwin also wrote, “(F)or there is a great deal of will power involved in the white man’s naïveté” (p.166)—a naiveté fostered by the illusion of a Christian America. So, there are three basic rationales for citizens proclaiming the U.S. is a Christian nation. The first is the view that sheer numbers of people who believe in Christ indicates we are a Christian nation, but this fails because of the low percentages of people who actually practice some version of Christian faith. More importantly it also fails because the Constitution not only does not proclaim this, but actually leaves open the possibility of some other religion having greater numbers of believers, let alone practitioners. A second argument is that the founding documents of the nation are heavily influenced by Christian beliefs and principles. This might seem to be true, but the reality is that there were other influences, including those of Native peoples. Third, individuals may claim that we are a Christian nation because Christian principles and values guide how we understand ourselves and organize society. The truth, however, is that the United States has operated out of other principles more suited to Machiavellian principles of statecraft. One might ask why is it so important to rid ourselves of the illusion that we are a Christian nation. What good will come of it? Isn’t holding this belief an inducement to live out a more moral existence as a nation? As for the second question, one need only go down the depressively long list of cruel, destructive, exploitive, and oppressive actions perpetrated in the name of a Christian nation to see that it has not been an inducement to live a more moral life, though people like Martin Luther King Jr. and others used this to [Edited Out] the consciences of white Americans. If we work to get rid of or limit this illusion, people of other religious and secular faiths may feel more at home in the U.S. Perhaps another benefit would be a growing awareness of the misdeeds done under the name of Christian nation. In facing the sins of our past, there might be a sliver of hope for change. As James Baldwin (2010) notes, “Not everything that is faced can be changed, but nothing can be changed until it is faced” (p.34). Notes. Armstrong, K. (1993). A History of God. New York: Ballantine Books. Baldwin, J. (1955). Notes of a Native Son. Boston, MA: Beacon Press. Baldwin, J. (2010). The Cross of Redemption: Uncollected writings. New York: Pantheon. Kierkegaard, S. (1846). Concluding unscientific postscript to the philosophical fragments: A mimic-pathetic-dialectic composition: An existential contribution, by Johannes Climacus. Responsible for publication: S. Kierkegaard. Trans. D. Swenson and W. Lowrie (1941). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Niebuhr, H. R. (1941). Meaning and revelation. New York: Collier Books.
    • If you are thinking that he'll be hurt by your decision then you are right may be he will,but that'll heal.. Moving with him further will make chances to return and heal difficult!! And if you are thinking about people pointing on you or your parents don't worry they will talk till they have that tongue(even if you do nothing they'll say oh!what a poor girl she does nothing :p) select your priorities and then act, it will ease your decisions inshaaAllah... May you find best in Allah's will 
    • Just remembering that incident today on 28th of Safar.  The noha I was listening today mentioning that coffin taken back to home again (may be to remove those arrows) and then taken to jannat-ul-baqee.
×