  |
|
|
|
The Origin of The Shia - Part OneRead the article this discussion is about
This archived discussion is "read only". « Previous 1 2 Next » » Binte - Mullahs In response to Re: Re: Re: Re: Comparisons posted by Pinky102:Hmmm. I supposed it depends on what perspective you're looking from. From the Muslim angle, it's actually positive because it is a something that gives hope. I think the thing that rubs many Muslims the wrong way is the tendency the US has to kind of shepherd others into their ideal of democracy and the 'right way to live and govern'. It would be nice to give countries a chance to explore what works for them - culturally, socially and religiously - rather than dictating how it should be done 'because we do it this way'. Iraq will never be America, because Iraqi's will never be American. It's an impossible goal to ask a people so different to imitate each other. As long as they don't infringe human rights (like the way Saudi's do sometimes), what's wrong with giving them a chance to work things out on their own? It could be a learning experience. We still see policies and politics leftover from the colonial ers in Kenya and sometimes it surprises us how these entirely foriegn concepts have trapped us in their tangles. We don't understand them and because we never had a chance to battle it out (so to speak) through practical application, we end up confused. I doubt mankind could ever come to one unanimous agreement about which way is the right way to rule. Everyone looks at it with bias. The best we can hope for is to agree to disagree Fatima -- posted by Binte » Pinky102 - Re: Mullahs In response to Mullahs posted by Binte:I concur with your summations. That's not the problem. The problem is that religious law imposes itself between the government and the individual or the groups to which the individual belongs. In other words, religious law over rules civil law and or imposes its rulings on both government and individual. That's the way it is in Iran and I suppose that's the way a lot of the "Christian Mullahs" would like things to be in America. Thank God we've got our Constitution that rules religious establishments and their direct laws out of our national society. The religious establishment is a separate entity and not associated with government in any way whatsoever. -- posted by Pinky102 » Binte - Re: Re: Mullahs In response to Re: Mullahs posted by Pinky102:just got back online after a 48 hr headache, a conjunctivitis attack and the hottest day this side of the equator I understand what you're saying about the constitution there being different from religious law and I can see how you feel safe with that. I suppose on this issue, we differ personally, because I would find safety in a (pure) religious constitution. I guess, that's a bias we can't factor out Fatima -- posted by Binte » Pinky102 - Re: Re: Re: Mullahs In response to Re: Re: Mullahs posted by Binte:The secular and the religious are two different things. You're correct, we differ on that. And, that is the major mistake our president made, thinking the Iraqis would come up with a secular constitution. But, the Shariah can be interpreted in a way very tolerant to secular society. It is the Sons of Islam and other Fundamentalist groups that will create the problem for the entire world--the Wahabis for example. -- posted by Pinky102 » hawknut - Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Comparisons In response to Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Comparisons posted by Binte:the story of Adam and Eve is the same except that Satan came to both and not just Eve. True, the Bible does say Adam was there with Eve... Genesis 3:6 - ...She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it. Curious. How is their repentence and forgiveness worded in your scripture? There is no inheritance of either a sinful nature or guilt for that act in any other person.... For a Muslim to believe that he or she inherited the sin of another, is to contradict the absolute Justice of God For a CHRISTian to believe in the inheritance of sin also contradicts what Ezekiel and Jesus said. Ezekiel 18:20 John 9:1 - As he went along, he saw a man blind from birth. 2His disciples asked him, “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?” If condemnation isn't inherited, it would also stand to reason that no man can inherit righteousness. Every child is born with a pure nature, connected to God. I believe so too, given Jesus' words about children... Matthew 11:25 - ... “I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children. Matthew 18:3 Matthew 19:14 we also don’t believe in any moral/human difference, weakness or evil being more dominant in one gender over the other Does this mean that both genders are equally weak and evil? Another question along this line... I've heard there is great inequality between Islamic men and women? Is the woman's subservance to man based on religious belief or simply cultural (if there's a separation between the two)? Is there a difference between the Sunni and Shia men in how they treat women, or is it the same thoughout Islam? -- posted by hawknut » Binte - Re: Re: Re: Re: Mullahs In response to Re: Re: Re: Mullahs posted by Pinky102:Yup! Especially the Wahabi's. They seem to take some kind of pperverse pleasure in widening the rift between the Shia and Sunni - which has led to greater hostilities between the two, based solely on rumour and false accusations that were started by the Wahabi at community level. Lets hope for the best. -- posted by Binte » Pinky102 - OnThis Subject In response to Re: Re: Re: Re: Mullahs posted by Binte:On this subject of fundamentalism in the various religious persausions, there appears to be a common thread connecting them together. It seems to me, and if I'm wrong I hope someone can show me where and how that is true, that they all go by the letter of their main source materials. Some how they get caught in a trap of their own making believing that their source material, eg., Bible for Christians, is the absolute and inerrant Word of God as given to the writers--the Q'ran for Muslims. What is the book the Hindus use? Trouble with using such a complicated and complex set of books as the 66 of the Bible is that the span of time involved covers upwards of a hundred generations of people starting in the stone age and progressing up to the time of the Romans. I guess the Muslims add another 5 or 6 hundred years to their book. In no way do I mean to depricate Christians, Muslims or Hindus; but, come on, literalism is just plain difficult to accept for intelligent people. In the earliest days when people started calling themselves after the name of Christ, Christians were told by some that they had to become Jews before they could become Christians. And, that was rejected by the great teachers such as the apostle Paul. But, now, because of the influence of literalism, Christians are being taught that they need to become Jews after they have become Christians. This sets up a class of people who are prejudiced by their source material to hate others at the deepest level because God directs them to hate. I know that isn't true of all people; but, it certainly is simmering among the Fundamentalists of Christianity. And, they are being met with an equal and opposite force in groups like the Wahabis. Where does the problem start? I say it starts in the literalist mind. -- posted by Pinky102 » Binte - Re: In response to Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Comparisons posted by hawknut:Here are some of the verses about Adam and Eve in the Qur'an "Then Adam received from his Lord words (of revelation) and He relented toward him. Lo! He is the Relenting, the Merciful." * The Arabic words used here are in the plural referring to the generations of Adam (us!) that would turn against each other, not to Adam and Eve, or male and female, as the English may suggest. In another place, it says: "They Said: 'Our Lord! We have wronged ourselves. If Thou Forgive us not and have not mercy on us, surely we are of the lost!" And one more: "Then they twain ate thereof, so that their shame became apparent to them and they began to hide by heaping on themselves some of the leaves of the Garden. And Adam disobeyed his Lord, so went astray." "Then his Lord chose him, and relented toward him, and guided him."
The inequality issues that have arisen over the centuries are PURELY cultural. I think within both the Shia and the Sunni communities, there are groups that still discriminate against women, because they still haven't broken free from cultural norms. Based on the Shia-accepted traditions from Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) and the Imams, I know there are none that refer to women as being 'less' than men. I wouldn't be that sure with the Sunni-accepted traditions, simply because I'm not as well versed with all of their books. You mentioned that the inheritance of sin contradicts what Ezekiel and Jesus said, yet isn't it that very belief that supports the crucifixion of Christ - so that his blood would wash away the burden of sin from the Christians? That's what I keep hearing over here. Can you explain that a little more? -- posted by Binte » hawknut - Re: Re: In response to Re: posted by Binte:Thank you so much for your explanations. I'm trying to find commonality rather than difference. You've helped. The inequality issues that have arisen over the centuries are PURELY cultural. I suspected as much. Same for some Christian sects which promote gender inequality based on some writings in Old Testament and Paul's epistles concerning women. Personally, I view those scriptures as reflections the Jewish culture back then, and not the teachings of Jesus. But then, I'm a 'liberal' Christian, not a fundamentalist. yet isn't it that very belief that supports the crucifixion of Christ - so that his blood would wash away the burden of sin from the Christians? That's what I keep hearing over here. Can you explain that a little more? Yes, mainstream Christian fundamentalists do believe in generational sin. Most also believe that they still suffer from sin inheritance, even though they profess that Jesus' crucifixion wiped Man's slate clean past/present/future. Contradictory doctrine, imo. There are thousands of Christian denominations with different views about this and other doctrines, so it depends on whom you ask. -- posted by hawknut » Binte - Re: OnThis Subject In response to OnThis Subject posted by Pinky102:The Hindu's book is the Bhagavad Gita and it's written in Sanskrit. I know it has stories of their deities and moral laws, but am not sure what else it contain. Most Hindus that I know rely on their gurus and priests to teach them any relevant texts. If there is an English translation available, I haven't heard of it Literalism is another one the differences between Shia and Sunni. All Muslims do believe that the Qur'an is the direct revelead word of God - you can't claim the faith without that belief and it fits in with the concept of His Justice also. However, Sunnis (and Wahabi's in particular as you mentioned) take the verses of the Qur'an literally - in varying degrees. Amongst the Shia, there is the study of Tafsir (interpretation) which is regulated by the teachings of Muhammad (pbuh)and the Imams. Verses are compared, studied in context (historic especially) and analaysed before being explained and applied to current circumstances. With a staunch literal mind, there is no place for tolerance or a sharing of ideas so I concur, that is partly where the problem lies. What's this about Christians having to become Jews though? I haven't anything here and we do have a predominantly Christian society with Sunday morning television dedicated to evangelism and all -- posted by Binte « Previous 1 2 Next » Please follow the guidelines set forth in the Suite101 Posting Etiquette when adding to the discussion. |
|
|
|
