Saintly_Jinn23

Allah does not permit anything to exist beyond himself. Anything that appears to "exist" does not do so except through Allah's will. Therefore, nothing can claim any independent existence for itself. If it could, then there would essentially be a multitude of gods as opposed to just one. By submitting ourselves to Allah, we allow ourselves to realize the illusion of our independent reality and accept our place as merely the extension and manifestation of the single Reality, who is Allah. From this point of acceptance, we then move away from the realm of non-existence towards the Existent. This is perhaps the basic principle of Wahdat al-Wujud. The question of whether this violates the separation between Creator and created I think is answered easily if one bears in mind the principle of that which higher manifests itself in the lower, but that which is lower cannot manifest itself within the higher.
 
In this way, God manifests to varying degrees through all of that which he has created, whether it is good or bad, but that which is characteristic of the created, whether we say this characteristic is good or evil, cannot be found to dwell within the divine essence. And because everything's own apparent reality subsists off of that of a single reality, whether it chooses to acknowledge that reality or not, it cannot, again, reasonably claim any existence for itself. Rather it must claim that it only exists through the existence of another and in doing so accept that its own existence is not in fact its own.
 
Some I think have taken these ideas a bit too far and crossed a very fine line into pantheistic territory or have opposed Wahdat al-Wujud because they have interpreted it as such. I think if we had to categorize it, panentheistic (God in everything) would be more proper. From a uniquely Shi'ite perspective, I think we can say that Wahdat al-Wujud is the realization of the illusion of our independence but nonetheless the maintenance of a created or illuminated order which, for all its plurality, manifests a single underlying principle and which upon contemplation by the created of this order, allows them to experience the essence of the single underlying principle directly and to submit to its will entirely through the acceptance of the Reality that is rather than commitment to the reality that in fact isn't.
 
Some would say that the "separation" between the Creator and created is illusion, but this depends on what one means by "the separation." If one intends to say that the separation between Creator and created is an illusion in that Creator and created are in fact qualitatively and quantitatively the same, this is an erroneous conclusion.  BUT, if one means that the apparent separation of the two as being two independent realities is an illusion, this statement would be wholly correct, in my humble opinion, if one means that the Creator is the only independent and absolute reality while the creation is the subjective and wholly dependent reality.

Sure is taqsiri in this thread.  :shifty:
 
 
But seriously please, brothers and sisters, before we even begin to discuss the subject of Wahdat al-Wujud, some facts must emphasized.The learned ulama are not completely unanimous in their opinions on this concept. That is to say, some believe in its principle while others, particularly the strongly exoteric leaning scholars, reject it. But even among those who believe in the notion of wahdat al-wujud, whether they be Shi'a or Sunni,  they don't always agree on the finer points of the doctrine. Allamah Tabatabai's understanding may not match how this or that Sufi sheikh or other Shi'ite alim understands it in its particulars, for instance. 
 
So, whether any of us are for it or against it, we must be clear what definition of wahdat al-wujud we are speaking of and according to whom. Then we can proceed to pick apart the particular definition we speak of in this case and whether or not it represents the train of thought of any legitimate historical school of thought. From there, we may examine any other historical and traditional interpretations of the concept which may exist and discuss those in further detail.
 
I say this because I feel, especially in the modern era, there are many pseudo-Sufis and mystics who peddle these doctrines like wahdat al-wujud but their understanding of it is not a traditional or historic Islamic point of view, and these so-called teachers sour the atmosphere for the true gnostics and Sufis by creating a caricature that stains their own image in the minds of other more exoterically minded scholars who might have otherwise been more open. Also, because of narrow understandings and just their own emotion getting the better of them, some polemicists against wahdat al-wujud or irfan in general have a deficient understanding of what they are arguing against and so to take their word for it when they say "this is what they teach and why it's wrong," can sometimes be a grave mistake. 
 
If we are going to discuss wahdat al-wujud, we must be clear on the definitions of various terms we use to describe the concept, who is giving these definitions, whether or not their authority to speak on these topics comes from a legitimate source and represents an historical view of scholars on the subject, and whether or not there are other definitions which themselves come from other historic schools of thought on the same issue.

Most Muslims don't believe Jesus was put on the cross at all, so what one of the four gospels says he said on the cross is kind of irrelevant here. Though I agree many arguments Muslims make through use of the Biblical texts are rather erroneous.

Literally who?
The only one blatantly lying here is whoever posted this, either that or he lacks serious reading comprehension skills.
The excerpt he posted quotes only Ibn Kathir as only saying "A path other than what God has laid down", the rest is Nasr and the editors' own understanding of what this means. They're not attributing anything to Ibn Kathir himself, but rather are following his own logic to what they think is the most natural conclusion. It seems rather stupid to accuse someone of purposely lying for that.
Also, to say that the People of the Book reject Muhammad (as) is silly because there are many Christians and Jews who, having a more open-minded and enlightened perspective, are willing to some degree to accept Muhammad as some kind sage or prophet and we see some more positive appraisals of Muhammad (as) even by Christians centuries back who had more positive or diverse experiences with Muslims and Islam. To assume that People of the Book reject Muhammad (as) by virtue of simply being People of the Book is to pass judgment on them. But what if they accept Muhammad but are nervous about publicly becoming Muslims because of the stigma? What if they accept Muhammad but are not ready to be full fledged "Muslims"? What if they have a heart to accept Islam but only haven't because they haven't had good experiences with Muslims to convince them it is a religion they want to be part of (similarly to how Gandhi said he liked Christ but disliked Christianity because of the British who came in the name of Christianity) or because nobody has really explained it to them? None of these individuals can be considered rejectors.
 
Not only that but the Qur'an never uses "People of the Book" as a synonym for mushrik or kafir anyway. It speaks of the idolaters and unbelievers AMONG them, but there are also places where the People of the Book are counted as opposed to the unbelievers.
It is in light of this as well as traditional commentators' definition of terms like "submission" or "Islam" that the editors have attempted to explain such an exclusivist toned verse in what is otherwise a very universal text. Nowhere in the bit this so-called doctor took a picture of does it say that those who "reject Muhammad" have their religion accepted, what it says is "islam means recognizing divine unity and submitting one's face to God, attributes not limited to the followers of Muhammad". What is objectionable in this statement? The followers of Christ were Muslims. The followers of Moses were Muslims. And if you ask Christians and Jews, who consider themselves followers of Moses and Jesus, if they are "submitters to God" and if they "acknowledge the Divine Unity" they would emphatically say yes. The only reason they would object to being called "Muslims" is because of the political and sectarian associations of the term.
 
And that's what the commentators are trying to go beyond. Taken in its most generic meaning, the term "Islam" could be used by anyone, even a polytheist, who believes he "submits" to God's will fully. What the commentators are trying to do is not universalize the meaning of Islam to include any and everyone but give a definition of the term that is precise and specific in what it refers to (in this case, acceptance of the Divine Unity) and yet broad enough that it isn't constrained by mere outward confessions which may or may not even be sincere or by outward trappings and customs that may have developed after the Prophet. And we DO find some awareness of this in the older Islamic commentators. Although Christians were always seen as deviant in some way from Christ's actual teachings of tawhid, they were always recognized to some extent as still part of the "Ummah of Isa" and thus accountable to Jesus one way or the other. We should also remember the story of Bahira who was already in spirit a Muslim before meeting the Prophet or hearing the Qur'an, although he was outwardly a Christian monk and had reached this exalted station through a correctly focused devotion to Christianity and this was possible because Christianity has a kind of "Islamic core" even in its present corrupted state that connects it to the Muhammadan revelation. Likewise, Salman (as) was never an "unbeliever" or "rejector" although he was once a Zoroastrian and a Christian. Traditional Islamic commentators more often than not, understood Christianity, Judaism, Sabianism, Zoroastrianism, etc. not so much as separate religions from Islam as much imperfect or misguided forms of Islam themselves which either misunderstood important doctrines or did not know how to express them as they were intended, leading to further misunderstandings of the divine message of monotheism.
The Qur'an shifts from the use of Islam as a general term for submission to God, which can THEORETICALLY include those Ahlul Kitab who are not guilty of shirk or rejection of the Muhammadan revelation at least in their hearts and attempt to follow the divine truth as much as it is contained in their respective traditions to allow them to develop a heart and understanding of the divine that is truly Islamic, and it shifts from that to a use of Islam as a particular term for the Muhammadan revelation as a continuation and explanation of the previous revelations that is against any and all shirk and denial, between which rest the Ahlul Kitab who follow corrupt yet still somewhat legitimate forms of the Islamic religion brought by the previous prophets. And Ahlul Kitab cannot be considered unbelievers or against Islam on the sole basis of being Ahlul Kitab, because the Qur'an does not refer to them as such in and of themselves. This is all the book was trying to drive at.
 
I apologize for this post being so large, but it's irritating when people try to spread lies and misrepresentations of Dr. Nasr's intentions just because he doesn't feel like Islam tells us to throw words like kafir around willy nilly.

I remember Dr. Nasr mentioning this in a lecture he did a year or so ago. I'm glad to see it finally finished. Shame about that price though.
 
It's not trying to be a substitute. And most Muslims don't even know Arabic to begin with.

It is Arabic.
Pretty much yes. However, do not get us wrong, Mecca's importance has a lot more than just being the place where Muhammad (pbuh) walked. The thing about Mecca is that in our faith it is was holy long before the coming of Muhammad (as). The structure of the Kaaba in Mecca is believed by us to have built by Abraham (as) and that Mecca was also the site where Adam (as) built the first temple to God.
Also, like you, we greatly value the lands where Jesus (as) walked and preached his revelations and wisdom, such as Jerusalem and Nazareth and many holy sites in the Palestinian territories, including those within the Israeli borders are visited by both Christians and Muslims due to their being places where Jesus and his companions resided or traveled. The trouble is that many of us Muslims who live outside of Israel do not recognize the Israeli government as a legitimate government and so are not enthusiastic about going to there and being tourists whom they obtain money from. The cost of this is not being able to see many of the holy sites of the Hebrew prophets, including Jesus (as).
With Mecca, for many years, Muslims who have ruled the area have forbidden Christians and Jews from entering Mecca. You can only legally go to Mecca if you are Muslim. As Shia Muslims we understand what it's like to be barred from the holy site as some Sunni Muslims assert that we are not Muslims and therefore shouldn't be allowed to go there either. Though we can, You are likely to hassled for being Shia there. Also, before the arrival of Muhammad (as) Mecca was considered a sacred place even to the Arabian Jews and Christians where they would pilgrimage and honor the memory of Abraham (as) and his song Ishmael (as) who built the Kaaba. So for those reasons, and due to a lack of seeing any convincing evidence the Prophet Muhammad (as) forbade "People of the Book" which includes Christians and Jews to go there, I'm in favor of the Christians and Jews being allowed to visit Mecca for spiritual and educational purposes.

Now that I think about it, the kosher products at the market I go to are all dairy products.
But Jews slaughter as per the same method as us, and most of the time, there is a blessing before it. But it is not always required (which is probably why meat being "kosher" is not enough to sell in a Muslim market). Luckily for me, I only buy fresh meat from a Muslim butcher, except in the case of fish.
But if hypothetically, you were present at the slaughter and the Jew blessed the animal before slaughtering it in the kosher method, and you witnessed it, I see no logical reason to reject the meat in that case or in the rare event that a Christian did the same method with a lawful animal. Whereas with processed or pre-packaged meat, kosher may not be enough, because you don't know if it was blessed.
The only thing I could think of that would make it void even it was slaughtered the right way would be if the Christian or Jew blessed it in the name of an obvious heresy like a Christian blessing it in the name of the Trinity or a Jew speaking a curse against Ahlul Bayt over it. :donno:
Also, if you were present at the blessing and you participated in the blessing, then I think that would make it a de facto Muslim ritual, even if you did not do the actual slaughter with your own hands. So if what you have posted is true, then perhaps all that is needed for kosher slaughter at the hands of a Jew to be halal is a Muslim present to participate in the blessing?

Though I know that some on here object to the Sufis, but I'd just like to, for the sake of argument, quote Farid al-Din Attar's hagiograpy, Memorial of the Saints, which touches on this very subject in the biographies he wrote on one of the saints, Abu Bakr al-Shebli.
Once Shebli was in Baghdad. He said, “We require a thousand dirhams, to buy shoes for the poor and despatch them on the pilgrimage.” A Christian jumped up and said, “I will give them, only on one condition, that you take me with you.”
“Young sir, you are not qualified for the pilgrimage,”
“There is no mule in your caravan,” the youth replied. “Take me along as your mule.” The dervishes set out, the Christian along with them loins girded to the trail.
“How are you faring, young man?” asked Shebli.
‘I am so happy at the thought of accompanying you that I cannot sleep,” he replied.
On the road the Christian took a brush and at every halting place he swept the floor for the pilgrims and
plucked out the thorns. When the time came for putting on the white robes, he saw what the rest were doing and followed their example. At last the party arrived at the Kaaba. “With your girdle I cannot let you enter the Holy House,” Shebli told the Christian.
“O God,” the Christian cried, laying his head on the threshold, “Shebli says he will not allow me into Thy
House.”
“Shebli,” came a voice out of heaven, “We have brought him here from Baghdad. Kindling the fire of love in his heart, We have dragged him to Our House with the chains of loving kindness. Shebli, get out of the way! You, friend, come in!”
The Christian entered the Holy House and performed the visitation. The rest of the party then entered and in due course emerged, but the youth still did not come out.
“Young man, come out!” Shebli called. “He will not let me out,” the youth replied. “Every time I make for the door of the House I find it shut. What will become of me?”
Though I know that some here criticize the Sufis and see Sufism as deviant, but I just wanted to show that there have been well respected scholars and teachers, such as Attar, who is viewed by many around the world as a saint himself, who agreed that Ahlul Kitab should be allowed to go to the Kaaba. Here in this tale, Attar's point of view is rather clear: The Christian's desire to see the Kaaba is a sincere spark of divine love within him and no Muslim has a right to try to stop the flames of passion for God in anyone's heart. Attar writes here that this is divinely confirmed by the response to the Christian's prayer. So some Muslims before modern times have felt that it is unfair to bar the Christians, or others for that matter, who sincerely wish to see the Kaaba.
With all due respect to Sistani, I think his objection is not from the Quran as the Quran says Ahlul Kitab's meat is lawful to us (provided it meets the already stated guidelines of halal) Kosher dietary laws are more or less the same thing as Islamic ones is regards to dairy and meat products, with a few more restrictions here and there. The market I go to sells both halal and kosher stamped products and the owner is a Muslim.
I think al-Sistani's objection is mainly due to the fact that most Kosher products you may buy, the money goes to Israel. But if a Jewish man slaughters a lawful animal in the Kosher fashion, which is the same as the Muslim Halal fashion, and prays over it in the name of no obvious heresies, and serves it to you fresh then there's no reason to object to eating it.

The scene in hell used to scare me.
This Quran verse seems to suggest animals will be judged:
There is not an animal (that lives) on the earth, nor a being that flies on its wings, but (forms part of) communities like you. Nothing have we omitted from the Book, and they (all) shall be gathered to their Lord in the end. -6:38
Muhammad (pbuh) and Solomon (pbuh) were said to be able to speak to animals and understand them just as we understand each other.

@Marbles: For the most part I agree, but I also think you are being a tad harsh. For starters, even in Nigeria, vigilante organizations have formed to combat extremists like Boko Haram, but it's very scary when you are dealing with monsters like this who have almost no conscience. If you have scars from surviving one of their attacks, it's just a signal to them that they didn't finish you off well enough the first time. When someone insults the Prophet (pbuh), this is usually something that can unite both moderates and extremists (and even then most of the people you see in the streets probably don't represent the majority, let alone a significant fraction, of the people who usually just stay in their homes). Plus, you have to consider things like national boundaries. While someone in Tunisia or Egypt or Lebanon might hear about Boko Haram and be like "Oh, that's terrible! What disgraces to Islam they are!" most of the people in these countries don't feel like taking time out of their day that they need for work or school to protest and try to fix Nigeria's problems. It's the same thing over here. It's horrible what's happening in Mexico with the drug cartels and gangs, but most Americans don't feel it's necessarily their business to fix Mexico's problems. Mexico should learn to handle it's own issues. It's not our job to nanny them. It's pretty much the same way in the Middle East, plenty of Muslims outside of Nigeria likely see Boko Haram as evil, but they don't feel like it's their business to fix what is Nigeria's problem. Either that or they think there's nothing they can really do anyway except disassociate themselves from such groups and what's happening so that their own image doesn't become tarnished.
 
With regards to the Shi'ite community, I'll be honest and say myself that while I am concerned about anything like Boko Haram causing pain to anyone or spreading, I also tend to think that it's not necessarily OUR business to fix what is clearly much more an internal problem for the Sunni community than it is for us. Nor do I think we should have to go out of our way to explain it to people since we shouldn't even be associated with these people, let alone the Sunni population to any excessive degree. I do feel like some of the source for these issues lies at least in part in with the flaws of certain aspects of the Sunnis' own social and religious structure. Our community is more often the victims of these kinds of groups. And so while a part of me thinks we should go out of our way to prevent these problems for the good of all Muslims, another part of me says in response to it actually happening that we should mostly just be concerned with protecting ourselves and fixing the problems in our own community. Meanwhile, the Sunnis should be forced to clean up their own garbage without it spilling over onto our neck of the woods. If they want our help and we can afford to give it, I say we should, but otherwise it's not much of our business to go out of our way to do anything if they are completely content with the way things are for them, I say. But when these groups begin attacking Shi'ites or using fierce anti-Shi'ite rhetoric, then we should make it our business. At least that's the way i feel about it.

I thought this was a good lecture. It's given by Sheikh Ahmad Hanif and deals with the issue of Islam, particularly Shi'ism in the urban landscape as well as how Muslims may be able to go about reaching the underclass by expressing a more tolerant and more open minded view of the "street culture" of the urban lower and lower middle class.
 

 
 I'd like to say that based on my observations I don't think Muslims, let alone Shi'ite Muslims, do enough to inject themselves into African American and Latino communities. I think some of the migrants are content donating to charity in accordance with Islamic law, but would not sit on a public bus next to a black man or a mexican if they could help it and probably would faint if their daughter brought home a black man from the ghetto. My impression is that the migrant muslim community is more focused on trying to be accepted by the white American mainstream and academia, not being accepted by the urban black, latino or even lower class white population. There are some among the younger generation of Pakistani, Iranian and Arab Muslims here in California, usually male, who do engage these sectors of society, but these individuals are usually not looking to do any kind of missionary work but just looking to hang out with and are often just secularized youngsters who consider themselves Muslim because their parents are. Generally speaking, though, I think there's an aloofness or uneasiness in the devout and largely migrant Muslim communities when it comes to interacting with the urban lower class. Most Muslims, unless they themselves are from that class or ethnic background, want to stay from the slums and ghettos, and may even dislike their kids behaving too "niggerish," instead of working to get a job as a doctor.
 
I would agree with Sheikh Hanif that there is a need to reach out more to the populations who need a sense of organization and discipline the most, but that this requires a more open mind to the culture of the urban population and a greater awareness of their environment and with these a greater tolerance and patience for these people, instead of just having a single absolute standard and trying to apply that to everyone in spite of their cultural background, personal nature or environment. It's necessary for people to know how to interpret and translate Islam into the language of the urban population in a manner which not only responds to the spirit of those people but also helps to cleanse that spirit of the most non-Islamic qualities and push it in a different and more positive direction. I think this is a difficult for some to accept because people grow attached to the particular manifestation of the religion that they have inherited and believe that it is THE universal application and that if it difficult for others to follow, it is not because that path is inadequate, but because the person in question is inadequate. There is also the fear that to allow a change or diversity in approach is to allow a change in principles or sacred law. None of these things are necessarily the case and I think the underlying issues here may have much more to do with class than they do religion anyway. The idea that Islam will necessarily be corrupted if it somehow co-opts what Sheikh Hanif defines as "street culture," probably has much more to do with the classic fear of the lower class.

I think it would be helpful to try to compile a list of saints to cross examine as one of users did on the last page. Like name certain well known Sufi saints whom we can perhaps look up the lives and words of in different sources to find compare and contrast the "Shia tendencies" of various famous Sufis, we might even find that many of the well known ones were themselves explicitly Shia. :D
We might also want to discuss more in depths the hadith in Shia sources against the Sufis to perhaps examine if the hadith are authentic or misinterpreted. For example, some hadith may target specific Sufi figures, but these hadith may not be attacking Sufism but just simply criticizing one Sufi in particular, which actually was not uncommon for Sufis to do back in the day. Also, many Shia books of hadith came to be compiled in the Safavid era. The Safaviyyah were (originally) a Sufi order that actually booted a lot of other Sufi orders from Persia during its rise to power, not only that not all Shia themselves agreed with the Safaviyyah. So some hadith may not be the words of the Imams, but the result of political strife. And again, even if the Imams did not put down or criticized a particular Sufi saint, this doesn't mean they were not Sufis themselves, they may have just been criticizing those whom they felt were distorting the Sufi path.

I was wondering if anyone could give me the rulings and definition on concubinage from the Shia hadith, just for historical research and personal curiosity. Thanks in advance to anyone who can help.

Your making generalizations, first of all. I don't care if the Ahmadiya call themselves Muslims, or the Sunnis, or really anyone else because it has no bearing on me and what I believe personally. Also, even if I might call somebody the name "Muslim" whom I don't believe is following the right form of it, my calling them "Muslim" is purely political. I'm not calling them Muslim because I believe they are following the right kind of Islam, and my calling them Muslim or them calling themselves Muslim does not affect my faith or what I consider to be "true Islam" in anyway so why get in such a tiff over it?Cause of public opinion? Like I really care.
Even if Christians try to define what being Muslim means as a way to criticize me, it doesn't have any bearing on me and what I believe if my reasoning is sound and true.
The discussion is on the Arians' beliefs and why they believed what they did. As well as the fact that the Arians didn't really call themselves "Arians" and objected to the Nicaean council, or at least parts of it or the interpretation of it, due to a feeling that the early Trinitarians did not represent the Apostolic teaching but had deviated from it and become heretics. The question is not whether there was/is a chain of Apostolic authority, the question is WHO had it, because from the mid to late first century CE and onward til the name of, there was more than one sect that claimed to have the bear the true Apostolic authority and teachings from the immediate and/or best disciples of Christ (pbuh). You may say "Well, the Council of Nicaea expressed the true apostolic authority and teaching," and if you believe that to be true, go ahead and believe that. I'm not criticizing anyone for believing in what they truly feel is right. However, if I ask you "Why should I believe the Council of Nicaea over these people's teachings that contradict it?" you should be able to present some reasoning that isn't circular. For example, if you point out a verse in the Bible, you must explain to me why I should interpret the verse the way you interpret it (if the verse is not explicit in its meaning and can be or has historically been interpreted differently than you have interpreted it) or if the verse is explicit in its meaning, you must provide sound reasoning as to why I should believe the verse or the book it is in or the Bible, for that matter, is trustworthy and should be believed. Using circular reasoning such as "You should believe the Council of Nicaea represented the true Apostolic chain of authority because the Council of Nicaea says so" or "You should believe the Bible is true because it says so in the Bible" is not sufficient reasoning to prove your point. Anyone can do that with anything, doesn't make it right.

I digress though that the discussion here is not on whether the so called "Arians" or "Semi-Arians" or the Trinitarians are correct so much as it is just a discussion on the fact that what exactly was the Christian Orthodoxy was not always very clear as some might think it was. Even from almost the very beginning there was much civil strife and religious debate over who/what Christ was, what he taught, and who bore the true authority to speak on the aforementioned matters. Even the New Testament (though I don't exactly trust wholly the authenticity of it) itself mentions this debate and arguing happening as early as the life of the Twelve Apostles immediately after Christ's ascension. The epistles attributed to Paul often debate against other supposed followers of Jesus or even those whom Paul claims to be in league with, such as St.Peter (as). I think to say that everyone in the world at this point in time in the early first millennium CE up until the mission of Muhammad (as) that called themselves "Christian" or a follower of Jesus (pbuh) did not necessarily believe the same thing and many of the groups outside of what would later be widely considered the "orthodoxy" were more influential than people think, sometimes even striking a bit of fear into those who would later be seen by many churches today as divinely guided saints. The idea that the Church was a single structure from the beginning that a heretic occasionally chipped a piece off of I think is fantasy just as much as the idea that there was no sectarian division immediately after Muhammad (as) and his death as some Islamic fundamentalists would like people to believe.
The truth is that other structures were being independently built at roughly the same time as the ones that are still standing today.

History is written by the victors
The word "Christian" merely means a "follower of Christ" had the Arians won the debates and political conflicts with their Trinitarian counterparts, they would have been known as the "Orthodoxy" and since the Arians saw themselves, by their faith, as "Christians" the word "Christian" would also be generally associated with their school of thought.
Whether the Ahmadiya are considered Muslims by this or that group of Muslims is irrelevant to them as by their faith they are Muslims and Islam refers to their thought and that's all that matters for them.
Words like "orthodoxy" are more or less subjective to whomever are the political champions and/or majority. Anyone who feels strongly enough that their religious beliefs are the right teachings can call themselves "Orthodox." According to Sunnis, I am "unorthodox" but by my faith I am "orthodox" as what I believe I believe to be the orthodox and right path, not the path that Sunnis believe to be the orthodox path and the only reason they are called "Orthodox" politically more often than my sect is because they are majority and dominate the political arena. Who generally gets called by the label of "Orthodox" depends on who can and continues to shout the loudest, not who shouts the most truth.

Sorry, but I think when Iran calls for unity, they usually mean unity that is in Iran's own political interests.
 
Co-existence is a type of unity, but we only make the distinction here because we want to illustrate how our conception of unity differs from the model preached by Iranian government and its supporters which is one that often does compromise Shi'ism and its distinctive character as well as its political and social independence, all for the sake of pandering to Sunnis. The Iranian government is more of a Pan Islamic government with some Shi'a tendencies than it is a Shi'a government, if I may be frank about it, and it has always been stuck in between a rock and a hard place trying to present itself as the guardian of Shi'a everywhere but also trying to appeal to a Sunni world that is largely hostile or indifferent to Shi'ism and Shi'ites and trying to service its own national interests above all else at that.
 
Unity as simply a general term co-existence implies that we aren't going to make concerted efforts to carve out room for Sunnis anymore than they will for us, but at least we can go our separate ways and not kill each other if necessary. It doesn't imply that our religious or geo-political interests must coincide with one another but implies that both sides can be free to say "I don't think people should follow your religion," without somebody getting their head cut off. In such a case, Shi'ites and Sunnis could live near each other and respect each other's space without entering it or they could share the same space with confidence that an individual space for themselves is always preserved elsewhere.
 
We should be in a position as a distinct branch of Islam where it doesn't matter if the Sunnis accept us or join their hands with us. And forcing unity or ignoring religious differences for the sake of unity only comes back to bite both groups in the rear end since when the inevitably clash occurs as a result of these differences, neither side possesses the ability to deal with it. The unity that the Iranian government promotes is one that suppresses dissident or even popular Shi'ite voices for the sake of a single national agenda and creates an illusion of harmony that ultimately serves to weaken both sides against the threats that will always exploit the inherent differences between Shi'a and Sunnis. This doesn't mean that communities where Shi'a and Sunnis live together necessarily have to change anything they're doing, just that the differences should at least be a cause for lively discussion and not treated like a skeleton in the closet that nobody talks about because it might make the happy times go away.

Unity is impossible because the doctrines that define Sunni Islam and the doctrines that define Shi'a Islam are incompatible by definition.
 
Co-existence implies working together for common goals but respecting each other's individual space.  Forcing Shi'a and Sunni together is destructive for both religions.

I am fully aware of the Bektashi, but some of the beliefs of the Bektashi I'm not quite certain I agree with and also they have links to the Moorish Science Academy, which I'm not certain I agree with either. :unsure:
However, my studies into the Bektashi have fueled a lot of desire to learn more about more Shia partial Sufism, as well as Rumi. I find Rumi to be especially inspiring and his work has since been very influential on how I see the world and practice my faith. Since discovering Rumi, I have found that Sufism is much more diverse than I thought. Other than Rumi's poetry and discourses and Attar's prose works, I have trouble finding Sufi orders/schools/tariqats whose beliefs I don't either find to be "too Sunni" or "too ghulat." At first I thought I could find a good path with the Bektashi, but am having doubts. I know which saints I accept and whose words I find divine wisdom in, I just am not sure which Sufi orders carry on the true legacy of these saints I admire and venerate.
Now, I'm on this search for a Twelver Shia mysticism that I can really dedicate myself to studying. I'm not so much looking to join any particular order. I don't think at this point in my life I'm the kind of person who would join a specific clergy or anything. I'm only looking to increase my knowledge in mysticism and spiritual sciences without deviating from the path that I'm following now (Twelver Shia). So it would be really nice to discuss the area of Shia-Sufism. What orders are inherently Twelver Shia, what orders are not necessarily Shia but the teachings don't contradict either the traditional Sunni or Twelver Shia outlook, and the history of Sufism among the predominately Shia territories, such as Iran.
Any help would be great. Again, I'm aware of the Bektashi and find some truth in their teachings. I just am not sure if they carry on the true legacy of the Sufi saints like Rumi, Rabia al-Basri, Mansur Hallaj, Farid al-Din Attar, that I read about. If there is better Shia-Sufism out there, I'd like to study it so I can make a better decision on what path I want to continue in my gnostic adventures. Ya Ali madad! :angel:

Please take note that the below is a rather long reply. Only read if you have time. After this, I'd like to just discuss the more immediate topic of the moon splitting. Hopefully with less lengthy replies. So please respond briefly so we don't take up too much of the pages in single posts. :)
-------------------------------------
@iDevonian:
Yes, I am not going against obvious facts, nor am I going the nihilistic route and saying nothing is real and nothing is fact. I am only stating that we as humans before discussing things that defy "natural law" must realize that we human beings, with our limited capacity and our inability to know all the facts, even in simple situations, must take into account that we do not fully understand nor do we know all the natural laws of the universe. This is not implying that we DON'T KNOW ANY facts, just that we must first consider in the discussions on things such as "miracles," that we know and only can know so much of how the universe works, as per the limitations that God has put on us both as a species and as individuals (as some humans must work harder to learn and understand things as well as others.) Now, with that in mind, we can approach the concept of "miracles," and the question of how and if they occur reasonably.
To be honest, I don't see miracles as being things that defy natural law at all, in fact, I think they abide by natural law rather perfectly, and it is just because of our limited knowledge and understanding as a species that they seem to "defy natural law." In other words, miracles are not these events, at least as far as I'm concerned, where the natural law is broken or bypassed, but rather are themselves events perfectly in accordance with the natural laws of the universe, it is just our lack of knowledge and our limited understanding, or our natural inability to imitate them, that makes them appear defiant or as though the laws have been broken. For us a species, different generally equals defiant.
And to the topic of the moon splitting, I am not even entirely 100% sure how this happened and what exactly happened to make the moon appear split. Did it physically split as one cuts an orange into two separate and apart halves? Did it split and two halves began to move horizontally or vertically in different directions but the two halves of it never fully separated from each other? Was there some sort of other natural occurrence that caused a visible crack but each half on the opposite side of the crack never moved away from each other? I'm not sure, I’ve never read the exact specifications of what the miracle looked like beyond the words “the moon split,” all I know is that Muhammad (as) did something that made people look and say "the moon is divided!" and this phenomenon differed so considerably from what the people were used to seeing that for many people, there was no way it could have happened, at least at the time, except through Muhammad's intercession. Even the Muslim community for centuries is not unanimously sure as to the exact nature of the miracle beyond just “the moon splitting.”
But aside from the historicity of the moon splitting miracle, this has become a discussion on the very nature and question of miracles themselves. I answer kingpomba's questions below which I feel may be relevant to many of your own inquiries as well.
-------------------------------------
@kingpomba:
Instead of going through a massive quote binge, I'll summarize your points as best as I can and give my personal answer that feel is the most reasonable. :)
1.) Miracles don't exist because God doesn't defy the natural law.
I agree that the fundamental natural law and order of this physical realm is established by God and that he does not ever break this. As you stated, for him to break this perfect law and order he established in his perfection would cause a catastrophic breakdown of the entire structure that is...well…existence! However, I think your logic for this being ground to dismiss miracles wrought by the hands of God through his servants is flawed, but only due to lack of understanding what miracles are.
As a budding student of medieval alchemy, there is one trait of the medieval alchemists that stands out which casted suspicion of them in scholarly circles of other "more practical" alchemists as years went by. Prominent chemists in the Christian and Islamic world, those who influenced even today’s “practical chemistry” taught in schools, tended to feel there were "formulas" to imitating miracles done by people such as Jesus Christ and other prophetic figures. If one could discover this formula, he or she may be able to recreate the proper conditions which these miracles needed for one to perform them his or herself. In other words, for some alchemists, to turn water into wine on some level as Jesus (as) did, all that was needed was for them to discover the proper formula that laid out the conditions needed to conduct it. Some critics of these outlooks voiced that this took away the very aspect of these feats that made them "miracles" If one could actually discover the formula for which to recreate them, as these were acts of spiritual intervention, not physical science, it would mean they were not miracles since miracles are acts done within the natural world that aren’t bound by its laws. For some people, such claims as a scientific formula to the miracles, let alone one which could be imitated, was like saying the prophets and saints who performed these miracles by the aid of God were lying. BUT, what many people don't understand was that the alchemists who adhered to these ideas did not see the physical realm and spiritual essence as wholly separated and operating wholly independent of one another. In fact, part of the discovering the formula in question was not only finding the physical conditions needed around the individual for the experiment to work but also finding and recreating the proper spiritual conditions within one's self so that one might gain the most important component for performing the feat without which only failure would result. That component was DIVINE PERMISSION, the permission and blessing of God to perform the feat. Even the simple chemistry we do today was seen by these alchemists as only being done by God’s allowance. To gain God’s blessing, one had to create the proper spiritual conditions God asked for in one’s self in addition to the physical conditions. In some cases, alchemists and mystics focused so much on using physical chemical formulas as metaphors for the spiritual journey of one's soul to higher heights of knowledge and spiritual enlightenment that it may become hard for many students of medieval alchemy today to differentiate when the writings of these ancient chemists are speaking of actual physical elements or are using metaphors for spiritual qualities the heart must obtain.
What I find to be a logical fallacy on your part is that, much like many religious people, you make a differentiation between the spiritual realm and the physical realm in that you voice that each follows its own independent course from each other, whereas as I, for one, disagree and say that every action of a preceding, more spiritual dimension, affects a lower and more physical world and that no dimension, not the smallest fraction, of physical matter is separate from the influence of the higher and more spiritual dimensions of reality. That indeed every physical scientific phenomenon that occurs, whether in the interest of good or evil, in this world is a reaction of a spiritual event by one or multiple individual spirits (which may include yours or mine) with their own will and that this reaction goes down a chain and how strong of a reaction that takes place in this physical world depends where the initial spiritual action that starts this chain reaction happens. Think of it like a ladder where each step represents a different level, or height, of spiritual essence free from matter, free from form. The lowest steps are where the proportion of physical matter to spiritual essence is greater and the highest being where the proportion of spiritual essence to physical matter is greater, but also imagine that instead of the ground you start at existing independently of the ladder, the starting ground itself you proceed to climb up from is but a step on the ladder. That’s really all this world is. It’s not a ground that we can traverse independently from the ladder, it is itself an indigenous part of the ladder, and were it not, it wouldn’t exist, and our traversing it is the same as traversing the ladder. There’s no one who traverses the starting ground but is not walking any steps of the ladder, the “starting ground” IS a step of the ladder that is being walked. What I’m saying by this metaphor is that whereas people such as yourself may feel there is this physical realm (the starting ground) and the spiritual realm (ladder’s destination) and between them there is a bridge (the ladder), I feel that the steps of the ladder are but themselves the various realms of physical matter and form and that to step off the ladder completely is to abandon form altogether and thus, by default, physical matter.
Take, for better example, angels, I believe angels are indeed spiritual beings of a greater rank than I am. However, they still retain a “form” Thus they are below God, who retains no form, and by default, the angels are themselves physical beings as well as spiritual beings because they retain a form, which requires the presence of matter. So in my views, to call the angels “spiritual, not physical” like some people do is politically incorrect. We are spiritual beings, but retain form, and thus are physical too. The angels, like ourselves, have a soul, but possess a given “form,” thus their souls, or consciousnesses if you will, are encased within a “physical prison,” just as ours are, albeit a “softer” and “cushier” one. lol
2.) How does God work miracles?
Though there are so many other questions you have put forth that I would love to answer kingpomba, I’m afraid in interest of staying on topic, I must not deviate too far from the discussing of miraculous events and how they occur (But rest assured I will use your inquiries as a backdrop for other topics I will open up soon on the site ;) ) I hope also, that you at least get a good general sense of my outlook on reality.
What I am explaining through my above paragraphs is that while “miracles” may be seen as events in which the natural law is transgressed by divine intervention, I posit that this is not proper as all physical events that happen in this world are but the reaction of a parallel choice of the spirits that reside within varying degrees of matter or substance. Therefore, if a miracle such as those we read about in the Bible or Quran, did indeed happen within this realm, it must have occurred within the physical limitations of the realm or dimension it occurred in.
A user here I admire, Amir-Husayn, once told me while I was in a bad spot that this world we live in is but a realm of ideas. Just as when you dream you see images that represent greater psychological ideas, that is exactly what this physical world is, what “form” is. It’s just an image of greater spiritual/psychological ideas, nothing more. Likewise, that’s all we are, both in personality and body, just images of the ideas of a thinker, but not the thinker ourselves. We are the FORM of ideas within the conscious mind of some other being who is nothing but pure consciousness (a spirit devoid of form, and thus matter & substance).
Now, how this relates to how God works miracles is that with this understanding of God as the Supreme Mind, devoid of form, and of this realm and anything that is bound to retain forms as nothing more than his everlasting “dream” being painted by the acrylics that are physical matter is that anything, and I mean anything, that is being done in the world of form is the expression of some greater spiritual idea, whether it be for or against the universal moral good, by God, or those who foolishly seek to overthrow him. Then we understand that the natural laws and limitations that manage the world we currently live on are themselves but images of ideas from this dream. What I believe that miracles are is but the images of ideas themselves and because they occur within existence, they therefore abide by the natural laws of this realm, but are still products of divine intervention. In fact, all natural laws are themselves products of divine intervention as nothing can exist independently of divine will.
What I am trying to explain is that the purpose of these miracles was not to defy the natural law but to show to us that we do not know all the natural laws there are. They were performed to show humans that they are not in control and that the natural laws of the universe are by no means accommodated or exist by the boundaries of their understanding. The point of them was to show people who, metaphorically speaking, thought that because they couldn’t jump higher than this said height, assumed that no one else could. They showed people “No, you are wrong that no one can jump higher, look at this person who jumps higher than you.” Those who didn’t want to understand shrugged it off as a trick, those who wanted to know but were not ready to understand thought the natural law was being defied, but those who truly understood knew that the natural law was never defied at all as anything God causes or merely allows to exist (in the case of that which is the spiritual product of evil) that does not tear the very fabric of existence itself dwells within the confines of the natural limitations of the realm it resides in.
The best way I can put it is that there is indeed a scientific course of events from point A to point B. No doubt, as God has willed it. But the point of these miracles was to show that what we understand to be point A & point B is so limited by our nature as humans, there’s no way we can expect to know what exactly point A and point B are, let alone what is the space between them. That little which we do know for certain we have only learned by the grace and mercy of God. These miracles performed by the holy men of old did not interrupt the course, they fit perfectly within it. When people say “This is defying natural law,” they are saying “This doesn’t fit,” what these miracles confirmed for people is “No, there’s more space than you thought there was, so much so in fact, you will never know the amount of space there is between the two points. Stop pretending you do. And the little space you do know is between them, God has taught you by his blessing or allowed you to learn by his mercy, and were it not for the little he has taught you and made you capable of understanding, you’d know nothing.”
Some miracles I would say, just to add, are also different than the miraculous healings and telekinetic manipulation of the physical objects shown to the general masses. Rather they are miracles where those in this world see what is already present around them, what is already presently abiding by the natural law (which is really just God’s law) but is abiding by it unseen by those who are under one distinct level of limitations accommodated to their God-given nature, either as individuals or as human beings in general as not all humans are bound by the same limitations. I would invoke two instances of these in the last few generations: the Marian apparitions and miracles at Fatima, Portugal, and the Marian apparitions in just the last decade in Egypt. In both of these incidents, people swear, even people of different religions (Muslims as well as Christians gathered in the same spot in Egypt and saw the same apparition of the Virgin Mary) to have seen these strange miraculous sightings, while others present at the same event of the same religions claim they saw nothing at all and didn’t know what the fuss was about. I think these are cases where the miracle is only seen by those present who are of the “required level” to see it, while those present at the same event, even if of the same religion, will not see it if they are not at a previous level of understanding necessary to reach so as to have the understanding required to see the miracle. It’s like two TV’s in the same house, but one’s antenna is better aligned so as to receive the image more clearly, whereas the other TV even if it is in the same house may not receive the image as clearly, or at all for that matter if the antenna is not adjusted correctly by its viewer.
3.) Why doesn’t God perform miracles when we could use them?
Why does it seem God doesn’t use “miracles” to help us in the great times of need? In great times of suffering? I see two reasons:
1. I feel that suffering is utilized by God very often for an end, and that much suffering is caused by God himself. Why? Because he is a bringer of great happiness. As long as he brings happiness, he brings suffering with him. Suffering and Happiness are two sides of the same coin. Everything produces and is the product itself of varying degrees of the two, but neither is ever wholly independent of the other. If we aren’t experiencing one, we’re experiencing neither.We are doomed to suffer indefinitely as long as we exist because every instant of great happiness comes with the start of great suffering. Happiness not followed by suffering is not happiness at all, suffering not followed by happiness is not suffering. To ask God to liberate us from suffering entirely is to liberate us from happiness entirely, and vice versa. If we are not experiencing either, it is because we do not even exist. The key to peace is not blocking the path of suffering, but ensuring the balance between these two so existence continues. God allows us to suffer because it allows us to experience the happiness he brings. Those who try to have one and not the other, were it not for God’s mercy, would fade out of existence.
1. God is always working in the world. All these “miracles,” are is ruby lipstick on an already hardworking and successful woman. Let us say God is a hardworking female employee in an office. This woman does everything she has to in order to keep the office functioning properly. However, no one recognizes the work she does. Nobody ever even thanks her for all she does and all the times she saved the other employees and been crucial in keeping the company running. But then one day, when she decides to wear some extra makeup and a pushup bra, everyone begins to notice the work she does and congratulates her for finally “getting her act together.” Then when she removes these extra trappings, but still keeps the same work input, they forget about her once again, yet still joyously reap the benefits of her work. I would say the people need to learn to appreciate, not to mention recognize, the fact that she has been doing and still is doing everything in her power to do a good job, to great success and whether she wears some extra lipstick to the job or not doesn’t have any effect on the work input she already is putting in.
In order to continue to exist, we cannot expect to never experience suffering, as it is the very price of our existence. Also, it is folly for us to think that because God is not slapping on some lipstick and a shorter skirt that He is not putting the greatest amount of effort He can to help us and keep us afloat. We must realize that we have caused the vast majority of unnecessary burdens upon ourselves through our inability to cope with our own existence/reality, and we must understand we are never doing anything we try to do independently from God, no matter how far it may seem we get to success, there is no success in anything but God, and all efforts to achieve success otherwise will end in ruin.
We may look at events like Auschwitz, and ask “Why didn’t God hurry to their rescue?” I say “You may not underestimate the power of God, but you underestimate the power of evil. God is always victorious in the end and these people’s deliverance did not fail to come. Either in death by martyrdom, or in liberation from the dominion of evil men while still alive, God never failed to deliver them as he did Imam Husayn (as). The only ones who failed were the evil men who thought they could succeed against God.” Still one might say “But evil succeeded for so long, how can evil succeed if God is so powerful and so present. Doesn’t the success of evil imply the failure of God, the failure of Righteousness?” I say “Evil never succeeds. Evil is a delusion that fancies that it may yield success, but only makes itself proof of its own folly. And were it not for God’s mercy for those who are evil, their evil would swallow them up and vanquish them from existence long before they wrought these tragedies. Evil is like a parasite that wants to consume its entire host (Righteousness), but were it do so, it would lose its only source of nourishment. Righteousness can exist without the exploitation of anyone, but Evil cannot exist without any of the Righteous to exploit.” A person then may say “But God took so long to help…” I say “On what grounds are you judging him ‘slow’ or ‘late?’ Are these two ideas not just subjective to human perceptions? And don’t the notions of who is ‘late’ and ‘right on time’ vary from person to person based on their own individual demands? You can’t judge a being as tardy that has existed before there was a space between things for which you may develop a sense of time for yourself, of which time is no master but to itself time is subservient.”
The way I see it, kingpomba, the men and women who are making advances in medicine, who choose to learn from past mistakes, showing good will to their fellow men through charity, humans like you and me who are struggling to do all the right they can do, are themselves the very tools by which God is working and managing this universe towards the eternal aim of Truth. It is when we cease to submit to this will of His, when we fancy that we or things around us have made or can make an achievement free from him under some twisted delusion of independence that evil is born and grows. Even evil is dependent on Him, and this is the source of its lamentations when it knows this, and the folly of its individualist logic when it attempts to present a success it has made. A great part of the problem is that we cannot see the hands of God working right now all around us through others, let alone through ourselves. We are the men of the office who do not recognize the woman who has shown up with lipstick and eye shadow as the same woman who has always been present and helping us, by whom we would achieve no success, and while she is with us in such trappings, we see and praise her work, but when she returns to work without these trappings, we no longer see that she is the same person doing the same work as before, regardless of the trappings, and attribute her successes to someone else who has done nothing or to ourselves, as opposed to her work, regardless of the cosmetics(the ‘miracles’ we beg for) she wears. God is building a bird house, we are but his hammers. Hammers cannot make anything on their own and the harder they try, the less they make.

The problem with this line of argument is that it allows Muslims to excuse themselves from debating the issue. I don't think in this case it matters whether we have Jesus' original Aramaic words because the argument is not really what Jesus actually said in this case. This is again another problem I see. There's this great focus on what Jesus said himself, when most of Christian theology really isn't based on Jesus' words. Even in the gospels, Jesus or what is put into his mouth I should say does not go into a whole lot of detail on his nature or the relationship between the parts of the Trinity or anything like that. Most of Christian theology is drawn from the epistles and passages of the gospels which are their respective author's words not the words of Jesus, and of course the speculations of the early doctors of the Church, many of whom came from educated, philosophically trained backgrounds. So in that sense, what Jesus actually said in Aramaic (if his Evangel/Injil was in Aramaic) does not matter in this case, because the argument on whether Christian theology is rationally acceptable and whether Jesus said anything about himself life what Christian theologians say about him are two almost separate debates I would think, because Christian theology could be rationally acceptable, but then Christians may be mistaken that Jesus held the same philosophic or theological worldview.
 
It is not necessary for us to have the gospels or any of the books in their original form, all we need are the forms and copies which have had the greatest influence on Christian thought, regardless of whether they are original or not or whether their authors are really who people claim them to be. The issue of whether the epistle of First Peter is actually St. Peter's words, how close the text of the epistle is to its original copy written by Peter or Pseudo-Peter, and whether the ideas or concepts found in the epistle as it has been passed down to us and as it has influenced present day Christian thought are intellectually valid are all three separate though interrelated debates. To just say "Oh, well, we don't have the original, so just forget it," would be to ignore the fact that original or not, the epistle has influenced the way millions of people believe and for a great many, whether the epistle is actually Peter's work or not, they still feel its concepts are valid or that it's in the spirit of what they think Peter actually said.
 
And this goes for language as well. Again, to go back to the Latin Vulgate, the Vulgate is certainly not the oldest version of the Biblical texts available, and even the Catholic Church acknowledges this, but it was more or less the foundation of Latin Christianity and for centuries when Catholic mass was held primarily in Latin, the religious idiom of Catholicism derived a lot from the Latin of the Vulgate and from the Latin writings of the church patriarchs as well as the original Greek of the New Testament. Latin speaking Christians did not defer to an Aramaic original of Jesus' message because they didn't have an Aramaic original. All they had were Greek-Latin biographies of Jesus and Greek-Latin renditions of his words and a religious worldview perhaps limited by the ability of the Latin and Greek language to express their religious ideas. So, for a Muslim-Catholic debate, you only need to know how to translate concepts from Greek-Latin Christian writings, be it the Bible or the words of the Catholic Church fathers, into an Islamo-Arabic idiom and vice versa. Again, this is probably harder now, because many Christians in the past who lived alongside Muslims in the past knew Arabic quite well, and both Muslims and Christians shared in the Greek and Persian philosophical heritage.

I wanted to ask my fellow Muslims on this forum especially what they think are the main problems with modern Muslim polemics against Christianity. That is to say, let us assume that the average Christian is capable of being convinced by way of argument that Islam is the truth and Christianity has deviated from the true path as opposed to say just being stubborn or lacking in the proper intellectual faculties. What exactly is lacking in our arguments or the arguments of our scholars that prevents Christians from accepting the truth. I can think of quite a few:
 
1.) Overdependence on non-Biblical works like the Gospel of Barnabas for instance, which no Christian accepts and no Muslim could accept. Anyone knows that when you argue with someone, besides common sense and reason, you can only use such written sources that both parties are willing to accept.
 
2.) Lack of a systematic approach to Bible and BIble criticism. That is, I feel like many Muslim scholars don't have a consistent view on what the Bible is or what it's place should be in Muslim scholarship. Do we totally reject it or do we accept some parts and not others? What is the criteria for engaging the texts of the Bible and arranging them on a scale of least authentic to most authentic or least contradictory to Islam or most contradictory? Absolute rejection is impossible and anyone who claims to reject the Bible fully yet still wishes to use it to support Muslim arguments comes across as insincere. And the lack of a consistent logical system of critical analysis of the Bible I think prevents our ability to argue to Christians in a language they can understand while being consistent with ourselves. Without that, Christians will just walk away wondering why we fixate on these such and such portions of the Bible and not the ones they see as the most important for their own arguments.
 
3.) Little knowledge of the history of Christian theology and the writings of the orthodox Church Fathers and later commentators. This is also a problem. Christianity is much more than just the Bible as many Christians, even those in the Protestant denominations who are much more Scripture Alone minded than their Orthodox and Catholic counterparts, they rely on a rich tradition of exegesis and philosophy all their own. Many Muslims think they just need to read the Bible, point out some apparent discrepancies here and there, quote a verse or two from the Qur'an and they're done. Seldom do Muslims take the time to check what Christian doctors throughout the centuries have had to say on these exact issues and if they have, it is more of a cursory glance than extensive. I don't think it's really possible to argue against Christianity very well unless one has more knowledge of what figures like John Calvin, Martin Luther, Tertullian, Thomas Aquinas, Augustine, Irenaeus, Eckhart, Francis, Dominic, Peter Abelard, Eusebius of Ceasarea and others have had to say on these same issues. Otherwise, a Muslim may be pointing out a problem that as far as the educated ones among the Christians are concerned, has already been sufficiently answered. There is often a lot more knowledge of modern Western philosophers like Kant, Hegel, Heidegger, Marx, and Nietzche among Muslims than on those traditional Christian thinkers of the past and Muslims engaging Christians in debate probably do not know much of the sectarian differences or sources for modern Christianity, something which their medieval counterparts who generally understood the difference between a Melkite, Jacobite and a Nestorian.
 
4.) Lack of knowledge of the traditional Christian languages. Imagine a Christian who doesn't speak or read a word of Arabic trying to argue against Islam using nothing but English translations, without reference at all to those who are experts on the Arabic language. In Muslim communities, there is also a serious lack of knowledge of traditional languages of Christian civilization which are importants to understanding to the Bible and its contents as well as important in consulting primary sources of Christian doctrine. There are very few Muslim intellectuals these days who are well versed enough in Latin, Greek, Aramaic or Hebrew as well as Arabic who can engage the Biblical texts on a more  meaningful level. This also can create problems in debates because Muslims and Christians may be arguing a point of theology rooted in a particular reading of the religious texts, but because neither knows the language of the other's texts, the argument may be rooted in faulty translations of Greek, Arabic or Latin concepts which need not be so at odds with one another. I believe that this is a more distinctly modern problem though as in the past, educated Muslims and Christians often knew a variety of languages and usually among Christians and Christian converts to Islam, one was likely to find them just as familiar with Muslim languages like Arabic-Persian-Turkish as well as more Christian tongues like Latin, Greek, Armenian, Biblical Aramaic and Coptic and therefore more able to translate concepts from one language to another.
 
5.)The argument from moral superiority. I feel like when Muslims are unable to respond intellectually to Christian claims of religious authority or to Christain doctrines, they will often resort to an appeal to their own perceived moral superiority and the superiority of Islamic culture. I think this ties into the inferiority complex many Muslims probably feel and is part and parcel of many modern Muslim critiques of Christianity and other religions less designed to debate the authenticity of Islam over or on equal terms with other religions, and more designed to make Muslims feel good about themselves. The problem with an argument from moral superiority is that it ignores the questions of what is moral and who has the authority to define what is and is not moral. If Muslims payed more attention to what they say, they might realize how silly this line of reasoning is. How can a Muslim argue that Muslims and Islamic cultures are morally superior to historic Christian ones from the point of view of a Muslim moral compass without first proving that the Islam has any right to say what is moral and what isn't. Case in point would be something like women's rights, the common argument is that Islamic civilization granted women more rights than Christian Europe did. Assuming this is true, it doesn't really prove anything. For starters, one needs to first define the Muslim granting of women's rights as more acceptable than the supposed Christian denial of these rights. Maybe it is better and more moral of the Christians to have been more restrictive of their women than the Muslims apparently were. One would also still need to prove that when it comes to saying what women should or shouldn't do, that the authority of Islam and its scholars should be taken over Christianity and its scholars. Often times, these arguments from moral superiority are either from the point of view of a kind of modern secular morality by whose standards both Christianity and Islam fall short or they are from the point of view of Islamic sources, which again Muslims in this case have yet to prove have any authority on the issue of morality, which takes them right back to square one.
 
6.)The search for the original Muslims. I get the feeling that when many Muslims are looking at Christian history, they are hoping to find some sect which they can point to and identify and say "SEE, THERE ARE THE MUSLIMS." The best example I can use are the Arians. The Arians are often portrayed even by some secular historians as proto-Muslims, but when one really examines their doctrines, this is hard to say as they did not believe Jesus was just a prophet, but was still the Son of God or a god himself as some of them held the the Father was "the God of our god (Christ)," certainly the position that Christ was created and not eternal is closer to the Islamic position, but then the Trinitarian opponents of the Arians were probably a bit more monotheistic in the philosophical sense than some of them were. But because Muslims are desperate to find that Christian sect in the histories of the Church that it can point to for continuity, how these groups like the Arians, the Ebionites and others actually differed from most Muslims is ignored for the sake of polemic. One could say that maybe some of the views of these sects were twisted either by mistake or on purpose by their orthodox opponents, but then we'd have to accept we don't know anything for certain about them, whether they were close to Muslims or far from them, because the orthodox accounts are almost all we have of most of them. The point is we can't hope to find that one sect in the Christian histories which is for certain our pre-Muhammadan religious forbears nor can we hope that pointing out similarities between Islamic doctrines and the various doctrines of differing Christian heretical groups will prove anything to those who take for granted that their particular tradition is a consistent one from the time of Jesus to now, with only the most superficial of changes over time.
 
7.)We need more Shi'ite approaches to this issue. From what I can tell, even many Shi'a scholars do not argue against Christianity from the point of view of Shi'ite tradition or a distinctly Shi'ite line of reasoning. Instead, their arguments are more general, from the point of view a of secular Muslim-esque philosophy or merely borrowing from the Sunni arguments. I think it is necessary that more Muslims in the Shi'ite community argue against Christianity while taking into account those doctrines which make Shi'ism a distinct branch of Islam which in some areas may be closer or further away from Christianity. For example, I have seen some Sunni/Wahabi Muslims arguing against Jesus being God or the Son of God by appealing to his fallibility as they see it in the Christian scriptures, but for Shi'a, the idea that Jesus (as) as a prophet is not infallible contradicts basic Islamic principles, whether it can be proven to be in the Bible or not. Also, sometimes when Sunnis are criticizing Christian concepts and doctrines, they are implicitly, and sometimes explicitly, criticizing Shi'a doctrines. In conjunction with what I said earlier about a consistent systematic critical method, a Shi'ite method, which is similar to yet distinct enough from the Sunni method in as much as it relies principally on the traditional Shi'ite sources of law and doctrine, must also be developed, not just simply a secular Muslim approach that is devoid of any sectarian identity or which relies almost exclusively on Sunni sources.
 
8.)Lastly, the approach must be objective and open minded as possible without betraying one's committment to Islam and tawhid. I think the primary motivation of arguing against Christianity must come from a basic love for Christians and an honest and sincere desire to see them change their ways not from a place of anger or a desire for victory of one's own self. Even if one could convert a Christian to Islam without any compassion for Christians, I don't think God would count that as a victory for Islam because victory in such a case came from a place anger and hatred and a desire for self-gratification rather than love and the one who converted now believes that anger, hatred and self-gratification so long as it under a thin veil of struggling for Islam is okay. Only a reasoned and compassionate approach which sees the Christian's best welfare as an individual human being as the goal and which respects the Christian's right to continue on the course he feels is best for himself be it Islam or Christianity will ever bear any meaningful fruit for Muslims. Unless one has developed this sense of compassion in his heart where he wants what is best for the Christian, in this case a legitimate, thorough and authentic understanding of Islam, I think it best to refrain from any and all debate, lest one fall into the trap of only writing/speaking for the self-gratification of himself and his fellow Muslims, rather than for the spiritual and material wellbeing of Christians in most need of Islam's truth and light. In some cases, one might even be forced to accept the Christians' continued unbelief for some time longer, but paradoxically I think this makes Islam stronger if it is the result of a stronger adherence to Islamic principles by those who claim to follow them.

I think you might be lacking a little perspective here. If there's anyone group of Muslims who love the modern technology brought by the Industrial Revolution and the present Digital Revolution, as I choose to refer to it, it's the Wahabis and Salafis. Look at the countries that buy and produce the most modern cars, cell phones and build the biggest skys[Edited Out]ers in the Muslim world.
 
The Wahabis and Salafis may have brought the Beheading Revolution, sure, but they also brought with it the fruits of the Industrial Revolution at a faster pace than anyone, including the secularists.

Except every socialist society ends up as what you call "anti-socialist" because of the inherent flaws in the socialist methodology. I think you're assuming when I say "socialist" I'm referring to the ideals that socialism aspires to and not how socialism actually manifests in history, which has always been some form of state capitalism, state control and state monopoly because even if the principle aims of socialism, at least in its more Marxist varieties, has been the creation of a stateless and classless society, it always hits a dead lock because these ideas are just not feasible, at least not through the methods of socialism.
 
 
yes, that's what I said. That's what you mentioned.
 
 
But it depends on how you define those things. In the case of Iran, I get the feeling these are used as an excuse to shut down any politically incorrect opinion or criticism of the state's ideology or organization. Freedom of speech requires the freedom to offend because sometimes people need to hear things that offend them. It'd be like if someone said they'd throw me in person for calling Abu Bakr and Umar "tyrants" and "companions of Shaytan" (which they are) because they see it as slander and not telling the truth. Sometimes the right to offend is necessary because unless you can be permitted to offend somebody, you may never be able to tell them what they need to hear but just don't want to. In Iran, people are often punished just for having the "wrong opinion".
 
 
 
But to what extent is it the state's responsibility to get involved in these matters I think is the question. I think in most cases when there are people telling a lie or slander, the state doesn't need to get involved at all. If I'm a shop owner and I start saying racist things and people don't like what I'm saying, they can just stop buying from my store and encourage others to do so if they want to punish me, and if that's enough to make me realize that I shouldn't say those things, at least not publicly, which in most cases it is, the state doesn't have to take me to court for "hate speech," or anything like that.
 
You can't prevent all lies and slander. You can't guarantee that nobody in a society will be offended by what others say or do and you don't have that guarantee for yourself. If a person can't handle that, they should probably go live in a cave or a monastery away from everyone. The people also I think have most of the tools needed to punish those who have views they feel are destructive either through direct action or through disassociation or publicizing their own views. If a state doesn't interfere with their ability to cultivate these abilities among themselves, it will probably find it has much less need to get involved itself than if it got so involved that the people became dependent on it and were never forced to learn how to solve their own problems without a state to coddle them.

For all intents and purposes, it very much is like one since it has lagged in the area of privatization for many years and most of the economy is state-controlled. It may not consider itself as socialist state, but functionally it behaves very much like one on the economic and social level.
 
 
If I were to get technical, any Shi'a or "Islamic state" is an absolute impossibility without the Imam (as) and anyone who claims to be able to set up a Shi'a or Islamic state is either a liar or delusional.
 
My views are that there should be little government and, if possible, no government at all without the Imam, but human nature often does demand government. Whatever form of government in those individual circumstances can provide the greatest security from external threats, balance the competing individual interests of the society to prevent internal strife, respects the privacy of its residents and support God's religion may be tolerated. Though it cannot be called an "Islamic" or a "Shi'a" state in my opinion if it breaks so much as a single law of the shariah, but to expect any state during the Occultation to do so would be ridiculous so as long as the state doesn't claim to be an Islamic/Shi'a state in that sense or assume any of the exclusive responsibilities of the Imam during his occultation and protects the ability of the scholars and holy men and women to spread and teach the religion, it may be tolerated. Religious leaders should not generally assert control over the secular administration and the government should respect the privacy of the religious institutions as it would any private company. If the government is lacking in its following of the shariah, the jurists should be allowed to advise and lobby in order to encourage the government to conform to the shariah in the most practical way possible but they can't force it to unless they intend to make war against it.
 
 
That has a lot more to do with corporatism than anything else though as you mentioned.
 
 
 Somebody publishing a politically incorrect opinion and being shamed by CNN or Fox for speaking their views so no one wants to associate with them is not on the same level as criticizing your government's policies only to be put under house arrest or taken in the middle of the night by the police, which is more common in most Muslim majority countries than it is in the United States, sad to say.
 
 
I agree, but how is this relevant to the thread's topic of freedom of press in a Shi'a state? Either way, Iran's government control and censorship of the press far exceeds the United States and most other developed nations.

First of all, my definition of capitalism is purely as an economic system in which people have the right to own private property and are allowed to save and invest "capital" into pursuing private business ventures. Now, that said, it should be born in mind that there are at least two forms of capitalism throughout history: merchant capitalism and industrial capitalism and of course within these you have lazes faire capitalism, state capitalism (which characterizes communism pretty accurately) and so on. Merchant capitalism accurately describes the form of capitalism which came into being during the middle ages, largely through the efforts of Islamic traders. Benedikt Koehler has written a book on this subject that I haven't been fortunate enough yet to read but which he has lectured on before (search youtube) on this interesting historical relationship between Islam and the birth of early capitalism in Europe. His thesis is rather interesting in that he casts Muhammad (pbuh) as one of the early pioneers of the capitalist economic system and so argues that European capitalism may never have arisen in the form it did were not for the influence of Muhammad's persona and legal codes on the business ethics of later Muslim merchants who would influence their European counterparts.
 
Industrial capitalism is a whole different breed of capitalism because it is defined by mass production and factory labor through the development and use of new and more productive forms of technology and (as time went on) was guided by a new ethos of "progress" which also became wedded to the prominent theories of Social Darwinism during the late 1800's. It also developed a lot out of Protestant culture, which had a very strong and rigorous work ethic that set it apart from earlier Catholic and Islamic society. Merchant capitalism was mostly limited by a lack of technology as people back then still mostly made things by hand and technological development was a slow process guided by a small class of individuals lucky enough to acquire some form of royal or religious patronage, it was under a different social order. During the era of medieval and early modern merchant capitalism, most people were still relatively self sufficient peasants who worked the land, the merchants comprised only a small class of urban dwellers who were always deferential to the established nobility, who viewed merchants with some suspicion or envy (since many merchants were richer than some of the nobles). I would disagree with Wahdat that the feudal system was so unfair, at least in Europe's case. Peasants really, for their time, probably lived in a state not too far removed from their noble counterparts and they probably had more independence than the average wage worker today has. Even Ali Shariati, who disliked monarchical and feudal systems as well as capitalism, admitted this much and even lamented the death of some of the benefits of peasant life which died as industrialism took over the world. European Peasants only worked  about 6 months out of the year, had around 80 holidays guaranteed by the Catholic Church and kept somewhere around half or two thirds of the products of their labor after giving the share owed to their lord and because their feudal lords were often away from their manors or had multiple manors they visited, they entrusted the peasants with watching over things while they were gone, which gave the peasant communities freedom to form somewhat democratic councils to handle disputes and manage the work load.  Also, as i said, whatever the peasant didn't pay in tribute to his local lord, he kept for himself. This allowed some peasants to become wealthy landowners in their own right. In peasant society, peasants would often save crop to sell in the market and this money would later be used to buy their own land. The lowest class in peasant society, little better than a slave, was the farmhand who had to live and work on other peasants' lands for a wage while owning none of his own property.
 
Also, when the Black Death wiped out much of Europe's peasant population, the peasants who survived til the end of the plague were in better position to negotiate with their lords on the conditions of their work and their pay, because there were so few laborers left that the value of peasant labor became extremely high during that period. This issued many complaints from the nobility of Europe, who resented the fact that peasants were becoming wealthier and more fashionable, which in their mind was breeding arrogance. The idea that peasants were all living in squalor while nobles lived perfect lives of luxury is really a myth. Peasants, for what they could get during a period with little advancements in science and technology, ate healthy, had access to education through the Church, had opportunities to accumulate wealth and invest capital and were at various points on fairly equal terms with the nobles in terms of wealth or property. The nobles also were not defined by wealth, this is also a myth. Nobles in most traditional societies could also be very poor while still holding noble titles. While wealth was an important part of being a noble as it allowed one to have a measure of financial influence equal to one's rank, many nobles kept their noble titles well into poverty and resented those who bought nobility rather than acquired it by way of breeding. A good example in our case would be the sayids, who are distinguished by breeding but are often as much the recipients of charity as the givers of it. Nobles in Christian, Islamic and other societies were usually so because they were descended from great heroes, warriors and holy persons, not because they were simply rich.
 
But I think many of people's problems with capitalism lie with the innovations and culture of modern industrial capitalism, which began around 1850, guided by a new secular and religious ethos than that which characterized both early Protestant capitalism and the earlier forms of Catholic capitalism (which was influenced by Islamic merchants). Early Protestant capitalism was very much a working man's movement and because Protestant work ethic was coupled with Christian simplicity and community, it really never developed that dog eat dog mentality which would characterize the Gilded Age and of course lavishness was looked down upon by many hardline and liberal Protestant movements who associated it with the clerical corruption and "royal popery" of Catholicism. In this way, Protestantism and Islam had something in common in that it was never seen as a problem to make lots of money and become wealthy since if one achieved this in a moral and legal fashion it could be seen as a sign of God's favor which could be used to the benefit of the Church/Ummah, but the question of personally enjoying one's wealth was a different matter entirely. Also, before the Gilded Age/Progressive Era, Protestant capitalism hadn't developed a comprehensive ideology of "progress" yet. The purpose of working for the Protestant was mainly to keep one's self away from idleness (a source of temptation) and to perform Godly service for the Church.
 
But both Protestants and their Catholic counterparts, still spent a lot of their money on opening schools, building churches, funding missionary activities and feeding the poor even though Catholicism suffered from clerical corruption in the finances and Catholic laity often spent more of their earnings on entertainments. And in largely Protestant America right after the Revolutionary War, most Americans were still self-sufficient farmers and agricultural labors. Founding fathers of the American republic such as Thomas Jefferson absolutely hated what they saw in Europe with increasing urbanization which forced many peasants from relative affluence in the countryside to destitute conditions as low payed laborers in the cities, dependent on their employers and government for virtually everything, which they saw as the very antithesis of their vision of liberty. Before 1850, one reason why early American industrial workers were more well off than many parts of Europe at the time was because there weren't that many laborers in the cities to begin with and so the value of labor was fairly high and the average worker far more skilled and able to go into business for himself. Until 1850 and the years leading up to the Civil War, the kind of exploitation, upheaval and destruction that characterized Europe's industrial push was largely unknown to Americans, that is until urbanization, immigration and emancipation flooded cities with too many laborers and not enough jobs. Plus, during the late 1800's onwards, governments began favoring big businesses in general because they were investing in "progress" which they felt would help America match Europe's industrial and military power, so the private property rights and ambitions of the little guy took a backseat to the "good of the nation." Government aid today also tends to remove pressure off big businesses to provide social services themselves to improve their image among consumers and employees.