Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله

A true Sunni

Veteran Member
  • Posts

    6,464
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Everything posted by A true Sunni

  1. In order for you to show that the trinity concept was in the hearts and minds of the bishops of Nicea you would have to show some proof that it was discussed. Instead we find that it was a discussion of Un-ity vs Di-Ity, to paint it otherwise is misleading. You may question why I as a Muslim choose to research this. This is certainly not as a way of reinforcing my belief in Islam. As a Muslim I believe without reservation that the original Christians were Unitarians. Starting from this point I looked for evidence of a Unitarian movement and this is how I discovered the modern Unitarian church, Bishop Arius and the Un-ity vs Di-ity discussion at Nicea ( not Un-ity vs Trin-ity)
  2. We are in agreement. The dogma was chosen to preserve unity but that doesnt mean it was the correct dogma. As I was pointing out I can find no evidence anyone proposing a trinitarian concept before the Council of Nicea and even then it was codified till much much later. The Council of Nicea codified a 'di-ity' not a trinity
  3. The predominant Christian belief today is the trinity. Historically we are agreed that there was a mish mash of beliefs before the Coucil of Nicea and some on here contend that the 'Trinity' was the dominant belief and was thus backed by Constantine. However when we go back and look at the actual writings we find that the 'Trinity' doesn't even appear to have been discussed rather it was Di-ity vs Unity My point is that since the Council of Nicea was the first real chance to codify the religion and if 'Trinity' was the predominant belief structure then it would have been discussed then but we find it never was
  4. I think you are misinterpreting it. Paraphrasing and using everday language to make it easier to understand not meaning disrespect Allah says I am sending to earth an authority (does successive mean it will take over from something else) The Angels say but what you are sending down will cause bloodshed and corruption etc. Isn't our praise and glorification of you good enough Allah says I know better then you. Thats my interpretation anyway. If anything it implies the creatures on Earth before Hz Adam were not corrupt and killers. It is man (us) who are corrupt and killers
  5. My understanding is that she has to be married to be an adultress ie. she is breaking her marriage vows. If the man is married and she is not . She becomes a fornicator and he becomes an adulterer. If she is married and he is single then she is an adulteress and he is a fornicator. If both are married to other individuals then they are adulterer and adulteress. Adultery is the action of breaking your own marriage vows
  6. My understanding is that she has to be married to be an adultress ie. she is breaking her marriage vows. If the man is married and she is not . She becomes a fornicator and he becomes an adulterer. If she is married and he is single then she is an adultress and he is a fornicator. If both are married to other individuals then they are adulterer and adulteress. Adultery is the action of breaking your own marriage vows
  7. She would only be an adulteress if she was married.
  8. I am answering the question in the form that it is written without making assumptions, judgements or recommendations. The question phrased it as 'repentance' and as such you have to accept. Historically many people have committed many vices including murder and they repented and we are told to accept it
  9. However it is important to recognise when these became codified into the Christian religion. It is commonly held that the trnity concept became codified into the Christian religion at the Council of Nicea, this is however a false assertion. The Council of Nicea codified a 'di-ity' father and son. The tri-nity came about 60 years later
  10. One thing I will note from your question and I am thankful for this. This question implies that Yazid was not Muslim, if you had considered him Muslim you would not have phrased that question as such. It appears you are non-Muslim and as such can see the reality of Yazid clearer then many muslims. The rest of your post was covered by the others
  11. When speaking about 'Unitarianism' it is important to differentiate between the relatively modern Unitarian movement and the ancient Unitarian movement. I would agree that Arius didn't found Unitarianism . The movement predated him. Muslims would argue that a form of Unitarianism was the original Christianity since it discusses Jesus as a created being. In addition to that as I said before the council of Nicea did not regognise or endorse a 'trinity' concept rather it excluded the Unity concept and endorsed a di-ity concept. The Trinity wasnt recognised till 60 years later. My challenge would be if the majority of the great and the good in Nicea already agreed to a trinity concept why wasnt it accepted at Nicea. Its commonly misquoted as being a Nicean creed however this a false assertian and maybe an attempt at a cover up of the Trinity origin
  12. Do you not believe in repentance
  13. That's twice we have agreed on something, we are in danger of making this a habit
  14. I am highly suspicious of 39 second clips. Context is very important and a 39 second clip does not indicate context. For instance if this was part of a lecture on the rules of war and all the caveats had been said before and after 30 seconds then noone would think anything of it. I am highly suspicous because it talks about the Holy Prophet (pbuhahp) and the Imams (as) which would mean its eiither a historical context or context of conflict. No Shia advocates what is being implied by this 39 second clip
  15. Thank you then we are in total agreement. If you had read my posts from the beginning you would have realised that these were the points I was making. These are Fiqhi issues and people are allowing customs to cloud their judgment when it comes to Fiqh
  16. That is not what I asked you. Why do you not answer my question.
  17. Have you read my post?. It's very clear what my problem is
  18. Thanks for outlining it in a clear and concise manner. Just to pint out whether it takes a millisecond or 5 seconds the break is important. The discussion here is in 4 parts What is the correct format of Adhaan How the the 3rd testimony can/should be added. Finally the 2 contentious points. should you curse degrade vilify a Shia who says don't add the 3rd testimony. and finally if you are cursing degrading and vilifying such a person are you not if not in word certainly in deed saying the 3 rd testimony is compulsory. As I said I have never met nor listened to any of his speeches and I am Muqallid of Agha Seestani. So this is not about personalities it's about Adhaan and is a Fiqhi issue
  19. Again you repeat yourself without substance or proof allowing your own personal prejudices cloud your judgement. i should warn you that as a moderator that you should not allow your personal animosity to cloud your judgement. He is considered a Marje Taqleed by a section of Shia society as such you should not be using illogical arguments to defame him. Since you are also from Pakistan that you will know that Mohammed Hussain Najafis opponents use the term Dhaku in a disparaging way and I would hope that wasn't your intention since this would be in breach of Shiachat rules. You should not allow your animosity towards individuals confuse people on the issue of Adhaan.
  20. I am sorry sister it appears that you are one of the many Shias who are confused about this whole issue of 3rd testimony in Adhaan. I have spelt out very clearly Ayatullah Sistani and Ayatullah Khamenis position on 3rd testimony but it appears that the subtle nuances escapes you. I will repeat it so that there is no misunderstanding and you can go and verify it with virtually any Usooli Shia Maulanas in the world. ( Shirazis excluded) Ayatullah Sistani and Khameni and virtually every single other Ayatullah are in agreement that 3rd Shahada is not part of the Adhaan Ayatullah Sistani and Khameni and virtually every single other Ayatullah are in agreement that saying 3rd Shahada with the intention it is part of Adhaan invalidates it OK So your question why how do they say it without invalidating Adhaan? Within the rules of Adhan you can take a break and restart the Adhaan So the Muezzin recites the Adhaan up to the 2nd Shahada, takes a break says 3rd Shahada and then restarts Adhaan Mohhamed Hussain Najafi is against this break and says we should recite according to the original formula proscribed to us by the Imams. You ask why am I defending him when he is not my Marje. I am not defending him. I am highlighting an important issue with Shias and that is Adhaan. As to my not knowing him him it doesnt matter I am defending the principle of Adhaan. He can be wrong on other issues, on this he is correct and in accordance with Ayatullh Sistani and Khameni . If you have other 'gripes' with him please share and we can look at each one in turn but on the subject of Adhaan you are wrong The subject of Adhaan has been discussed ever since I joined this site and even now people are still confused. Do a search you will see
  21. I am sorry Sister Starlight you seem very confused in your statements and yet try and to point the finger at others. I shall make a series of statements. Tell me which one is wrong. 3rd Shahada is not part of Adhaan Saying 3rd Shahada believing it is part of the Adhaan invalidates Adhaan. Ayatullah Sistani and Khameni say its preferrable to say 3rd Shahada but as an inserted comment/statement, not as part of Adhaan. 3rd Shahada as an inserted comment/statement is therefore a preference not compulsory Cursing and vilification of someone for choosing not to say something that is a preference is clearly wrong. Since Malangs say 3rd Shahada is compulsory it is quite likely they are behind this hatred campaign Which of my statements is false
  22. Allowing it, doesn't mean you have to do it. Choosing a partner a personal choice so qute clearly Agha Sistani cannot rule on that
  23. So Agha Khameni and Sistani say it is preferable to say it providing you recognise that it isnt part of Adhaan By a process of extropolation do Agha Khameni & Sistani curse and villify those that choose not to say 3rd testimony. This is 100% Malang issue. Malangs say 3rd testimony is Wajib. It seems that a lot of Shias on here are confused on Adhaan
  24. Ayatullah Sistani and Khameni allow you to say the 3rd testimony during Athaan as long as you say it knowing and recognising that it is not part of the Adhaan. They allow you to say it on the basis that it is possible to interrupt the Athaan to say something and then continue the Athaan . This distinction might appear to peculiar to the uninitiated but it is an important distinction. In fact according to Agha Khameni & Sistani if you say 3rd testimony during Adhaan thinking it is part of the Adhaan, your Adhaan is invalid . So the point I am making is why are people cursing and vilifing someone who is forbidding something that is not part of Adhaan anyway
  25. Thanks for correcting me. I read my post after and realised I should have wrote 'malang'. The point still holds that we are cursing someone who forbids something that isnt part of the Adhaan anyway
×
×
  • Create New...