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

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Posts posted by A true Sunni

  1. On 9/19/2017 at 3:37 PM, Mujtaba5 said:

    Salam brothers, I'm a student at the university of sussex. I tried researching regarding imam bargah's in brighton last year when I moved here but didn't get any luck. So I had to commute to London for Muharram majalis. I read the thread and everything but I'm still a little confused. Can any of you please offer any guidance? With Muharram a couple of days ahead I really don't want to miss out on the azadari this year. Any help would be really appreciated. 

    There are no Imambargahs in Brighton. Your closest Imambargah is in Crawley.

    Stafford House

    1 Bonnets Lane

    RH11 0NX

  2. On 5/31/2017 at 11:55 AM, andres said:

    I am not a professor of this subject and it is a difficult one. I have read somewhere thay the Ebionites originated from the Church in Jerusalem.  Ebionites were regarded as heretic. They believed Jesus became divine when he was baptised by John. They also refused the Virgin birth

    I think it's difficult to say what the Ebionites believed since they are now extinct. I agree Ebionites were regarded as Heretics but that just means that they were/are in the minority.

    Shias are often called heretics and the proof that they are heretics given is that Sunnis are the majority

  3. 19 hours ago, andres said:

    Gospel of John tell that his brothers did not believe Jesus. Gospel of Mark even say his Mother and brothers did not believe him. Now this was in the beginning of his ministry. After his ministry his brother James was the leader of the Christian Church in Jerusalem. He obviously chamged his mind. Not all did, but they were not Christians. Christians believed Jesus was divine.

    Thanks Andres,

    interesting parallels between Shia & Sunni. The companions claiming that they know Jesus better then the family and then going on to claim overall leadership of the Christian Church.

    What evidence do you have that James ever accepted Jesus as a Deity.

    The only writings I have read from James are the fragmented Apocalypse 1 & 2. Intriguing fragments that imply a different deeper teaching from Jesus.

  4. 8 hours ago, Student_of_Deen said:

    Abu al-Walid al-Baji, A prominent Maliki scholar from Al Andalus explained:

     “It may be that Maalik said that placing one hand on top of the other is makrooh because he was afraid that the common people would believe that this was one of the essential pillars of the prayer and that prayer would be invalid if one did not do this.” 

    Imam Maalik (rahimahullah) probably considered it makrooh for the above reason. Unlike the OP, He did not considered it an act emulating the pagans. 

    It is unlikely he is a prominent Maliki scholar. If he was a prominent Maliki scholar he would know the following incontrovertible facts.

    Maliki school of thought has an extra level jurispudence over and above the other 3 schools

    The extra level of jurispudence says if you find 2 conflicting opinions and cannot resolve which one is correct, look to the people of Medina and do what they do.

    So in respect of Salaat. Imam Qasim who one of Imam Malik's most prominent students reports that he asked Imam Malik his opinion on those that folded their arms in salaat.

    Imam Malik is reported to have said 'I have never seen the people of Medina pray with their arms folded. 

    The second piece of evidence that is in my opinion far more illuminating is that the Ibadis of Oman also pray with their arms open.

    The Ibaadis are the descendents of the Kharijis who split from the main Ummah after Jang-Sifeen.

    They are well known to have rejected religious indoctrination from the Omayads, Abbasides and indeed Hz Ali(as) or any of the 4 Sunni Imams.

    Since it is quite clear they developed in isolation from the rest of the Muslim Ummah it is enlightening that they also pray with their arms open.

    Malikis , Shias and Ibaadis historically do not share any Religious Jurists therefore either they all independently all started opening their hands or this was the original method.

    Hanafi. Hanbal and Shafi all share a common origin and teachings and all have closed arms.

    Just on the balance of probability hand clasping would appear to be the modification   

  5. 55 minutes ago, iCambrian said:

    I never said there was proof in my faith. But Atleast I'm willing to admit the subjective nature of my ideas, unlike you.

    You have obviously not been reading what I have said or tried to understand. When a person says this is an academic debate, he is by definition admitting there are differing views on the subject and wants to explore differing view points.

    In addition to that if a person makes a claim that is objective then he must be prepared to be challenged on that issue.

    As I said to Baqar I am not here to convince you nor do I expect to because what we are discussing is partly an article of faith.

    It is unfortunate that you are unused to these academic debates

  6. 2 hours ago, baqar said:

    This discussion is not going anywhere.

    And there seems no chance it will end.

    Better to discuss it in a Christian forum where there are many more people with more knowledge of the subject.   

    I suggest we call it quits.

    The discussion from my point of view is purely an academic one, not one of trying to prove people right or wrong or indeed have an end.

    This discussion has forced me into researching further and the more I read the more I learn. 

  7. 20 minutes ago, andres said:

    I am not accusing the bishops that were in minority. Pragmatism is not always bad and judging people from such long ago by modern standards is problematic. Maybe it was best to accept the descision by the majority if this could end the discussion.(?) A discussion that many Christians today regard as rather unimportant. When reading documents hundreds of centuries old one must try to imagine during wich circumstances they were written. It is not all black or white. I find it problematic when the Bible or the Quran is read with the conviction that it is Gods perfect word. When you have read it and understood it in your own personal way, you must put aside your own common sence, and follow what you believe God told you was right. Which as we see differs heavily. Some Christians still do, but it is seemingly more common in the Muslim world resulting in terror and conflict between Islamic beliefs of different kinds. Maybe the bishops you regard as hypocrats actually promoted peace. And as seen from year 2017; what diffetence does it make if Arius is right or wrong? Can we not live in peace together with different opinions about the caracter of the Holy Ghost? 

    We are not talking about the contents of the Bible or the Quaran. We are not talking about the Quaran or Bibles interpretation or misinterpretation .

    The concept of the Trinity is not derived from the bible hence its irrelevant whats written there except as a back drop.

    The Nicean Creed is very important because the original and subsequent changes gives us a snap shot in time of the predominant view of the Church.

    History is written by the victors and this applies to religion as much as anything else.

    Majority of Christians in 2017 are Trinitarians. It is an inconvenient observation that a significant proportion of Christians in the earliest period might not have considered Jesus a Deity.

    According to the argument you are using it seems that you are saying that Arius believed Jesus was the Son of God but couldn't resolve the issue of his relationship to the Father. 

    According to you they excommunicated him on this basis but didnt bother resolving the third leg of the triune. Highly doubtful

    Its more likely I contend that Arius believed that Jesus was the Son of God ( Messiah - as the Jews of old used the terminology)

    The split occured because the Eastern church which hadnt been influenced by 'Greekified Christianity' and all its deities wasnt prepared to make Jesus a Deity   

  8. 10 minutes ago, iCambrian said:

    I never said that the trinity was accepted by everyone.

    your first statement is your own subjective opinion. The creed is too vague to be assigned a di-Ity view. It just doesn't clarify on the nature of the holy spirit

    so they got all these guys together from all over Christendom and left the creed in a big a mess as when they started . As far as I can tell the trinity was hardly accepted by anyone. 

  9. So a question that might be pertinent here.

    If a girl marries and joins her husbands household is she still thought of as being part of her fathers household.

    Are children of the daughter considered to be part of the grandfathers household.

    It seems that 'Ahlul Bait' that are being purified  are the household of Hz Ali (as).

    The cloak incident is reported to have taken place in the House of Hz Ali (as)

    This would be entirely consistent with Shia philosophy.

  10. On 5/29/2017 at 8:03 AM, iCambrian said:

    Everyone really seems to keep repeating themselves. And @baqar is correct regarding a lack of information (Atleast regarding information posted here). 

    We have figures like athanasius, who, based on his writings, appears to be supporting of a triune God and played a significant role at nicea. But there isn't any way to see into the minds of many other bishops. We simply see that there is wide acceptance (99%?) of belief in the father, the son (who is completely God and completely human), and the Holy Spirit (doesn't clarify on the relatedness of the Holy Spirit with the father and son).

    though there were many views of the divine nature of Jesus back then. Presumably there were many varying views on the Holy Spirit as well. But it didn't appear to be an objective to settle "trinity vs di-Ity" discussion. This would either be because the trinity was already accepted by everyone, or there may have been uncertainty about the role the Holy Spirit played in it's relatedness to The father and son.

    but as andres said before, even in today's time there are debates and discussions and unclarity on the precise nature of relatedness of figures in the trinity. 

    The main thing we can gather from nicea is that Jesus was widely accepted as being of the same substance as the Father, considered fully God and fully human. And that there is belief in the Holy Spirit. 

    This statement above allows for agreement between trinitarians as well as others who are without a clear position on the Holy Ghost.

    As I said 99% signed up to a Di-ity model that persisted for over 200 years. You keep harping on about trinitarians but as I said several pages ago

    Talking about the Father Son and Holy Ghost doesnt make you a Trinitarian. Its affirming a particular relationship between the Father Son and Holy Ghost that makes you a Trinitarian.

    If the Trnity was accepted by everyone it would have been written in the Creed.

  11. On 5/29/2017 at 5:26 AM, andres said:

    The Creed does not specify the Ghost other than that it is not created. Arianists believe both Jesus and Spirit was, so the Creed was a refutation of Arianism. The issue Holy Spirit being left open. Obtaining majority on a Creed was probably easier this way. 

    Incompetent or forced? Arianism still existed, individuals still had a silent opinion of their own but many wisely accepted the descicion by the majority. After all, the Creed was only a human product.

    With all respect that's a very creative interpretation. As I said I really call into question the competency of the Bishops if indeed they were basing their creed on what they weren't rather then what they were.

    Now you are also accusing the Bishops of hypocrisy by signing up to something they didn't believe.

    That silent group with their own opinions set Christianity down the path of embracing Trinity.

    Interesting I have been looking at the usage of the term 'Son of God' in Jewish writings.

    Judaism as you know does not countenance a real physical son of God ( as in Christian teachings),

    but nevertheless does use the term occasionally.

    It uses 'son of god' when it discusses the Messiah but also very occasionally kings.

    Is it possible the real 'Arian' controversy was that Bishop Arius wanted Jesus recognised as a Messianic Son of God ( not a deity)

    And the other group wanted to deify Jesus

    Just a thought 

  12. 6 hours ago, Student_of_Deen said:

    It will be better for you if you stop talking about logic when the fundamental beliefs of your sect are illogical and unfounded. 

    I never said no one is to be blamed. You`re not only illogical but you also make up things. 

    I see, so what you are saying to me is that you have no answer and therefore just try and shout down what you don't understand but I will humour you for the moment

    So which member of 'your Ahul bait' is responsible for the killings of thousands of innocent Muslims?

  13. 5 hours ago, andres said:

    Hi Sunni

    Thank you for answering my question. Back to yours.

    In Swedish we say Trosbekännelse=confession of belief. It is used to define the common belief within our Church.

    Nicaea had more than one issue to deal with but the dispute on trinity was urgent. The big fight was against Arius idea that God was the boss, Jesus was created by God, second in the hierarchy. Third in line was the Holy Ghost, also created by God. As we know this position lost the vote to the Nicean creed. In my opinion this creed does not say that the Holy Ghost was a second independent God. Had this been so, the Creed indisputable had been polytheistic. Such an idea does not pop up from nowhere, (nor did Arianism).The dispute had been going on very long, and had there been a "2-god party" the polemic had been revealed this. That is why I asked you if there are any documents to show such party existed. I am pretty sure it did not. A polytheistic idea was never an option.

    See here we have a problem. I am informed that the great and good Bishops with highest religious qualifications , the very best in all of Christendom sat down as a collective and wrote a creed.

    This creed set out the basic beliefs of the Christian Church, defined what it was to be a Christian, excommunicating those that didn't follow this Creed.

    All very noble objectives but calling into question the competency of the aforementioned Bishops since they all signed up to this Di-ity model.

    The only circumstance that this cannot be considered a di-ity model is if the 'holy spirit' was not considered a deity at Nicea 325 but becoming a deity in constantinople and then becoming part of the trinity in the 6th Century.

    If we are to use this model then we see it as a simple battle of 

    One Deity ( father) vs 2 Deity ( father and son) ( Holy Spirit not considered a deity)

    You can see the how easily the Christian Church fell into this trap and started deifying entities whilst simultaneously trying to say they were one.

    So we have make a choice they were either incompetent or forced 

  14. 2 hours ago, andres said:

    It would be apropriate if you, before asking me to answer more questions, answer my question.

    Have you found other Christian documents from the first 4 centuries that support that the creeds operate with 2 deities?

    If you had read my answer you would have seen that I asked you the question and then answered it. If you had reflected on the questions and answers you would have realised that what I was saying to you that I didn't need go look for any more documentation. The great and good of Nicea 325 from every part of Christendom would have been far more aware of documents then we are 1700 years later. The great and good the experts and pinnacles of religious authority in Nicea 325 declared Di-ity . What other authority individually or collectively would you like to refer to that out weighs the cream of Christendom.

  15. 1 hour ago, andres said:

    Hi Sunni

    So you mean that the 325 creed say one deity is Father=Son and the other is the Holy Ghost.  

    From the creed only, one can make this conclusion. However this is not the only possible conclusion about the nature of the Spirit. Other documents must be regarded. Have you found any that support your 2-God theory? 

    Thank you at last we are moving forward. Before I answer your question, I would pose 2 questions to you and answering those will supply your answer.

    What was the purpose of the Nicean council ?

    And what does Creed mean ?

    Some of the objectives of the Nicean council council was to clear up controversies, define what a Christian was, define the nature of god and put this in a statement of belief called a 'Creed'

    So like it not the first Nicean conucil rejected Un-ity and embraced Di-ity without once mentioning Trin-ity.

    60 years later they  achieved a half way house to Trinity

    200 years later they issued the Filoque which if you read it objectively and use 'Bishop Arius' logic it cannot be considered Trinity either.

    So yes Nicean Council 325 over 90% of the Bishops signed up to a Di-ity model

  16. 13 hours ago, andres said:

    Trinity is impossible for humans to fully understand. God is the creator, Jesus had a body, but what does the Ghost look like? I believe we all have a more or less different imagination, so trinity can be different. I do not agree with you saying that trinity of 325 only contains 2 deities, but I cannot refute that there were persons in Nicea that believed so. The need for specifying trinity indicates that there were not consensus. Specification does not change peoples views, it only makes them shut up if threatened with excomunication or worse. Wikipedia say:

    Tertullian, a Latin theologian who wrote in the early 3rd century, is credited as being the first to use the Latin words "Trinity",[23] "person" and "substance"[24] to explain that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are "one in essence—not one in Person

    This was 100 years prior to the Nicæan creed that also mentions the three components. What makes you believe that the Spirit was not regarded as one of three deities according to the Creed of 325?

    Several points here and I fear I am in danger of repeating myself. Taking it from the top yet again because it appears that you wish to that you either aren't reading what I am writing or deliberately misconstruing what I am saying and what your own Christian theologians say.

    I am going to say a few comments about  your posts to date, If you could avoid making the same mistakes or repeating mistakes it would be helpful.

    Talking about Deity is not the same as talking about Trinity there fore proving something is a deity does not prove they are Trinity ( this is basic theology)

    No-one has denied that there may have been elements within Christendom that supported Trinity Tertullian is a case in pont( I already acknowledged that - not sure why you felt the need to repeat it)

    Creed is a statement of belief and the Nicean Creed 325 was the codified statement of belief that the majority signed up to

    Trinity is about essence, substance as posted by you and included in the definition of Trinity.

    So in the Nicean creed even if Trinity isnt mentioned it should discuss substance and essence  

    The question that was posed was what was the belief of the majority Bishops at Nicea 325 as evidenced by the Creed the majority signed up to.   

    OK so what does the Nicean Creed 325 say

    Belief in One God

    Belief in Father & Son one essence one substance

    Belief in Holy Spirit

    That is not Trinity that is Di-ity

    Father & Son one essence and deity

    Holy Spirit another essence and deity

    Thats Di-ity

    In fact if you read the Filoque you will see the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father & Son

    Using Arian logic this makes the Holy Spirit subordinate to the Father & Son and there isn't a true Trinity either   

  17. 15 hours ago, Student_of_Deen said:

    And you should take a class in manners. You explicitly used the word "rijs" but now you`re using nonsensical explanations to avoid blame.

    Keep your logic to yourself mate. 

    I can see why you might feel uncomfortable with logic, it flies in the face of everthing you believe.

    In your warped sense of the world 2 members of the 'Ahlul bait' can be sanctified by God, go to war with each other , get thousands of Muslims killed. But hey its OK no-one's to blame   

  18. Thankyou for providing all this insightful information. I was not aware of this information However despite all you have written only 2 could be considered Trinitarian. So you have proven that some people considered trinity a viable creed.

    This makes it even more damning that the original Nicean creed or the constantinople creed didn't mention it all. The trinitarian creed was known but not even acknowledged in the writings.

    Any independent observer would be drawn to the conclusion that the trinitarians were such a minor irritation they werent even worth discussing

  19. 56 minutes ago, andres said:

    Is the creed from 325 I linked to not a written evidence??

    The written creed from 325 proves my assertions not yours. I previously said to you to read evidence that you post before referencing it.

    I am not sure how many times I have to repeat myself before you go back and read the creed that you keep referencing.

    I summarised it for you which you didn't dispute and a few posts later you are again referencing it as supporting the Trinity.

    Any objective reader reader can see it's a di-ity + 1 . Any objective reader will see that even Constantinople creed doesn't reflect Trinity.

    Even the Filioque of the 6th century that caused the great schism casts into question the nature of the Trinity.

    So again and again and again I repeat ad nauseum 

    Why would the great and good bishops of Nicaea codify Di-ity and reject Un-ity without even a mention of Trinity if that is what they believed.

    Then they added to the Creed to choose a half way house for the Holy Spirit at Constantinople

    200 years later they again added to the creed trying to create a Trinity .

    the attempt to define the Trinity caused the great schism.

    Even Christian academic writings support this.

    The mystery of the Trinity is not the nature of the Trinity but why it took 600 years to codify it.

  20. 1 hour ago, andres said:

    I am not questioning your right. Just being curious. By the way I am a lutheran not a unitarian. Always were. As child I was taught evening and dinner prayer to God. Never to Jesus or the Ghost. Still I always pray to God, never to Jesus. Old habit. Many, like pentacostals, pray to Jesus, but I think praying to the Ghost is very unusual. I dont mind if people do, all three are the one God. 

    Trinity may not have been declared dogma in 325, but as I understand the creed from back then, trinity was already an established theory.

    I remember you said earlier that you said you were Lutheran so I meant Unitarian in the generic sense not in the specific sense. As to the trinity being an established theory, I would strenuously disagree with that because all the written evidence says otherwise. It seems that trinitarians feel threatened by the written record and thus feel the need to look for 'conwayan' alternative facts.

  • Create New...