In the Name of God بسم الله
Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'heretics'.
Found 2 results
Catholic (Latin) Church
HamidCZ posted a topic in Christianity/Judaism DialogueAssalamu aleikoum Brothers & Sisters, i think that many people would be probably shocked of this info. This Church (mother of the other Christian Churches, except Nestorian and partly Tewahedo) is in fact pagan bloodthirsty worship of the sun - go google photos ,,Christianity Sun worship". The Latin Church after Constantine's accepting of Christianity many pagan traditions became part of that faith and the Roman Empire started never-ending war against the ,,pagans" and heretics, for example war against Christian Arianism faith or later crusades against the Muslims, Orthodox (Eastern) Christians, Christian Albigensians and later against the northern and eastern European Pagans. And also how this bloodthirsty ,,Church" behaved towards my people - the Romani people (known as Gypsies, the G-word is somewhat racist), when we were called by the Catholic ,,Church" Pagans or filthy unbelievers even in Europe we were Christian as the local population but we took religion little bit differently than the local White-European population and it was what ,,Church" saw as herezy - it was a part of Witch-hunt and Inquisition. Another example of this sick bloodthirsty ,,religion" is a way how al-Andalus (Spain and Portugal) was re-Christianised and what happened after it, yes i am speaking about the Inquisition and also about Spanish and Portuguese colonisation of Americas and Inquisition there. Also there were pogroms on the Jews done or at least supported by this ,,Church" and the Jews often found freedom of religion in Muslim lands, same way as after fall of al-Andalus. And i should also mention the European Wars of Religion between the Catholic Church and it´s daughters Reformed Churches, which was very bloody and inquisition was working in enormous scale. After the 30 years war between the Catholics and Lutherans in the lands which were regained by the Catholics happened bloody re-Catholisation which in the Czech Lands took life of at least 60% of population and in Hungary around 40%, re-Catholisation was orchestrated by the Church and by the Austrian state. Christianity got under control because of French Revolution which was not only anti-Monarchist but also anti-Catholic and in general anti-Religious, this formed modern-day Europe, if this revolution was not successful Europe and Americas would be probably till now in Dark Ages and full of bloodshed of the innocents. But wait this is not an end of the story! I have to mention that the Catholic Church also supported Nazi Germany and Independent State of Croatia (Nazi pro-German state) which both were doing genocide of the Jews, Romani people, Serbs, Poles and other people who were seen as inferior races. I mentioned before that the Catholic (Latin) Church is a mother of other churches, i must to mention that also other churches supported witch-hunts, anti-Jewish pogroms and called the Romani people pagans which led to genocides of the Romani people. And this is not still the end of a story because last shadows of reality of this Church and it´s daughter Churches we see in Africa where the Christianity is often still so bloodthirsty as it was in Europe before and in fact we have seen it in Europe (or Asia?) recently when the Armenian Catholics started (again) doing genocide of the Muslims in nowadays Eastern Turkey (between 1830 to 1916) and of the Azerbaijanis (since 1830´s with some pauses in all the lands of Azerbaijan and last time between 1988 to 1994 in Azerbaijani land of Karabakh) and also we have seen how Orthodox Christians many times did genocides of the Muslims in Bosnia (many times since 1790´s, last time between 1992 to 1995), Kosovo (last time in 90´s), western part of Turkey (1919-1922), Algeria (Africa- done by the Catholics - 1830 to 1962) Cyprus (1960´s to 1974) and Lebanon (Asia - done by the various Christians - 1975 to 1995).
Read the Reddit comments to understand what the thread was about, since the post has since been deleted. ....................................................................................... I'm so tired of the utterly nonsensical and VERY COMMON Sunni notion of 'I am happy to seek unity with Shias as long as they don't curse/insult/abuse any Sahaba, and especially NOT Aisha, Abu Bakr, Omar, Uthman. Firstly, any Shia claim regarding the sahabi that happens to go against the Sunni narrative is considered insulting. Secondly, and more importantly, is that the same notion is true for Shias... You are insulting the Ahlul Bayt by not accepting them as divinely appointed leaders of Allah, and infallible individuals, and perfect preservers of the religion of Islam, and a high means of seeking closeness to Allah (intercession). Not only are you insulting revered Shia figures by not following them, you are commiting MAJOR shirk by giving a false attribute to Allah, by saying that Allah has not always appointed an infallible leader on this Earth, and that there currently isn't an infallible leader. Furthermore, the real kicker is that plenty of revered Shia figures, such as Abu Talib (رضي الله عنه), are considered kuffar by Sunnis. Is this not insulting? So, how can we Shias unite with Sunnis based on their own fallacious logic? Shias are the minority, and Sunnis are the majority. It makes Sunnis think that they are Orthodox and that they have to unite with Heterodox for political and humanitarian reasons, and that Shias must make [ridiculous] compromises. Shias are far more receptive to the unity message, because we actually understand Sunni Islam, and can see the commonalities. We understand that we can't make Sunnis compromise on their beliefs. Simply by being the minority within Islam, by nature we Shias already understand Sunni beliefs, whereas Sunnis have a basic strawman understanding of Shia beliefs... which is natural, considering that they are the majority. Anyways, the point of my post is the following: Let's compile a list of revered Shia figures that are not given their proper status by Sunnis, according to Shia Islam... with an explanation given. ...This is to show that we Shias and Sunnis can unite, but we cannot unite upon revered figures and imamah. ...This will also serve as a way of showing Sunnis that this argument of theirs makes no sense. Another important question we may ask is "What about commonly revered figures like Imam Ali (عليه السلام) who is given different status in both sects? Can we unite upon Imam Ali (عليه السلام)?" ...a common Sunni criticism of political unity is that "Ali ibn Abi Talib (رضي الله عنه) is given an improper status in Shia religion because they call upon him... tawassul (intercession) of the 'dead' is Shirk! So there is absolutely no room for unity since we can't even agree on the status of the sahabi" [yes, I am aware that the Imams (عليه السلام) are still alive, but Sunnis don't believe this...] I would love to hear your thoughts. Wassalam. JazakAllah Khair. Fi sabilillah.
Recently Browsing 0 members
- No registered users viewing this page.