Christian-Muslim Relations In the Middle-East

Ice Tea

Ice Tea

Active Member
What is the difference between innate apostate and national apostate?

Under the heading of Tahrul Wasilah, many forgeries have been attributed to the book.

I need a reference about which page of Tahrul Wasilah we are talking about?

It shows you just pick up hearsay (whether true or false is irrelevant) and you spread it on hateful impulse to satisfy your bigotry.

I have my stance on apostasy in Islam. But you have to make sure you know what you are talking about.

And how is your stance relevant here? Even if you're against the death penalty, it won't change the fact that 99% of Islamic scholars approve of it.
 
  • Advertisement
  • Dark Angel

    Dark Angel

    Legendary Member
    Fantastic. So first, do you now agree Christianity can also be said to be a political movement?
    false inference. no where did she hinted at such an agreement.

    There were Papal states. And you are telling me through the interpretation of a verse that the papacy is a legacy of Peter, who was appointed by Jesus.
    false conjecture. Jesus establish a spiritual leadership for the Church He did not establish a state.
    That means Jesus instituted the papacy. And therefore, whatever crimes and atrocities that were committed under the popes, Christ is responsible or blame worthy according to you.
    Fallacy of composition. the one part that is true is that Jesus established a spiritual leadership. the second
    Fallacy of induction. Jesus specifically instructed against violence and autricities.
    Secondly, building a church stil doesnt amount to establishing a religion. First, I dont see the connection between Jesus appointing a shepherd and establishing a religion, especially that the religion had no name and Christians were first viewed as a Jewish sect.
    Fallacy of equivocation. the words Church, Shepherd, Flock, have a special meaning in Christianity.
    Mind projection fallacy. the true meaning of the word Church is the community of believers. the term was only later used to describe the buildings where the community meets.
    Also, Christianity is not a religion in the traditional sense of the world. unlike what you subscribe to, we strongly believe that God has no use for religion. Christianity is simply a pointer to God. And yes indeed, Christianity is the fulfillment of the promises delivered to the Jewish people.

    Secondly, I dont see the connection between Peter and the popes that claimed power way after him. You are free to point out where Jesus said he was establishing a religion called Christianity. Allow me to give you a hint:
    MInd projection fallacy. Jesus if anything, abolished religions in their traditional sense that you are still unfortunately dealing with and seeing things through. eventually, the community was eventually named after Christ, as is stated in the book of acts 11:26:

    26 And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.

    "This day those who disbelieve have despaired of [defeating] your religion; so fear them not, but fear Me. This day I have perfected for you your religion and completed My favor upon you and have approved for you Islam as religion." (Noble Quran 5:3)
    fallacy of big bold black letters. resorting to big bold fonts make little difference in this discussion.
    still, one would have to question the perfection when the full 5:3 verse reads as such:

    Prohibited to you are dead animals, blood, the flesh of swine, and that which has been dedicated to other than Allah , and [those animals] killed by strangling or by a violent blow or by a head-long fall or by the goring of horns, and those from which a wild animal has eaten, except what you [are able to] slaughter [before its death], and those which are sacrificed on stone altars, and [prohibited is] that you seek decision through divining arrows. That is grave disobedience. This day those who disbelieve have despaired of [defeating] your religion; so fear them not, but fear Me. This day I have perfected for you your religion and completed My favor upon you and have approved for you Islam as religion. But whoever is forced by severe hunger with no inclination to sin - then indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.

    حُرِّمَتْ عَلَيْكُمُ الْمَيْتَةُ وَالدَّمُ وَلَحْمُ الْخِنزِيرِ وَمَا أُهِلَّ لِغَيْرِ اللَّهِ بِهِ وَالْمُنْخَنِقَةُ وَالْمَوْقُوذَةُ وَالْمُتَرَدِّيَةُ وَالنَّطِيحَةُ وَمَا أَكَلَ السَّبُعُ إِلَّا مَا ذَكَّيْتُمْ وَمَا ذُبِحَ عَلَى النُّصُبِ وَأَن تَسْتَقْسِمُوا بِالْأَزْلَامِ ۚ ذَٰلِكُمْ فِسْقٌ ۗ الْيَوْمَ يَئِسَ الَّذِينَ كَفَرُوا مِن دِينِكُمْ فَلَا تَخْشَوْهُمْ وَاخْشَوْنِ ۚ الْيَوْمَ أَكْمَلْتُ لَكُمْ دِينَكُمْ وَأَتْمَمْتُ عَلَيْكُمْ نِعْمَتِي وَرَضِيتُ لَكُمُ الْإِسْلَامَ دِينًا ۚ فَمَنِ اضْطُرَّ فِي مَخْمَصَةٍ غَيْرَ مُتَجَانِفٍ لِّإِثْمٍ ۙ فَإِنَّ اللَّهَ غَفُورٌ رَّحِيمٌ
    so the question begs to be asked, how does the subject transition in the same verse from not eating dead animals, to the despair of those who do not share your beliefs, to fear me don't fear them, to i have completed and approved your religion? if an independent source were to be examining this, they would come up with the conclusion that it is more probable that there was a mistake made when these different topics were collated together.
     
    Last edited:
    Rafidi

    Rafidi

    Legendary Member
    And how is your stance relevant here? Even if you're against the death penalty, it won't change the fact that 99% of Islamic scholars approve of it.
    Well, as far as this discussion goes, you guys have repeatedly spoken about "what the religion says". In the spirit of what the religion says, we must treat every religious topic.

    No doubt, there are senior clerics who support death penalty of apostasy. And there is differentiation of apostasy, between innate and national, which I asked you to tell us more about. You haven't.

    When it comes to this particular subject, we dont find the punishment of death penalty for apostasy in the Noble Quran. It is a jurispridential topic. It relates to fiqh or Islamic jurisprudence. Therefore, you cant really say "Islam preaches death for apostasy" because unlike the Bible, which promotes death for apostasy, the Quran does not promote death for apostasy as punishment. In fact, quite the opposite is found in several places in the Quran.

    When it comes to jurisprudence itself, the scholars are divided on this matter. There are scholars or jurist who completely oppose the death penalty for apostasy and I support that position. So when you talk about "apostasy in Islam", you are therefore telling us about apostasy according to the view of Ayatollah Khomeini on what he deems suitable as punishment for apostasy or what the Sheikh of al Azhar thinks. Not what Islam says because as far as the Noble Quran is concerned, there is NO punishment for apostasy mentioned. Whatever punishment you find in the Quran, that punishment is not for APOSTASY.
     
    Rafidi

    Rafidi

    Legendary Member
    false inference. no where did she hinted at such an agreement.
    I think you are trying to be a nuisance. You abandoned your defense of Mr Augustine, and you are now interjecting into the discussion of a different subject I am having with another person and you are acting as her personal lawyer.

    She said Christianity has never being a political movement:

    Christianity was never a political movement.
    false conjecture. Jesus establish a spiritual leadership for the Church He did not establish a state.

    Fallacy of composition. the one part that is true is that Jesus established a spiritual leadership. the second
    Fallacy of induction. Jesus specifically instructed against violence and autricities.

    Fallacy of equivocation. the words Church, Shepherd, Flock, have a special meaning in Christianity.
    Mind projection fallacy. the true meaning of the word Church is the community of believers. the term was only later used to describe the buildings where the community meets.
    Also, Christianity is not a religion in the traditional sense of the world. unlike what you subscribe to, we strongly believe that God has no use for religion. Christianity is simply a pointer to God. And yes indeed, Christianity is the fulfillment of the promises delivered to the Jewish people.


    MInd projection fallacy. Jesus if anything, abolished religions in their traditional sense that you are still unfortunately dealing with and seeing things through. eventually, the community was eventually named after Christ, as is stated in the book of acts 11:26:

    26 And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.


    fallacy of big bold black letters. resorting to big bold fonts make little difference in this discussion.
    still, one would have to question the perfection when the full 5:3 verse reads as such:

    Prohibited to you are dead animals, blood, the flesh of swine, and that which has been dedicated to other than Allah , and [those animals] killed by strangling or by a violent blow or by a head-long fall or by the goring of horns, and those from which a wild animal has eaten, except what you [are able to] slaughter [before its death], and those which are sacrificed on stone altars, and [prohibited is] that you seek decision through divining arrows. That is grave disobedience. This day those who disbelieve have despaired of [defeating] your religion; so fear them not, but fear Me. This day I have perfected for you your religion and completed My favor upon you and have approved for you Islam as religion. But whoever is forced by severe hunger with no inclination to sin - then indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.

    حُرِّمَتْ عَلَيْكُمُ الْمَيْتَةُ وَالدَّمُ وَلَحْمُ الْخِنزِيرِ وَمَا أُهِلَّ لِغَيْرِ اللَّهِ بِهِ وَالْمُنْخَنِقَةُ وَالْمَوْقُوذَةُ وَالْمُتَرَدِّيَةُ وَالنَّطِيحَةُ وَمَا أَكَلَ السَّبُعُ إِلَّا مَا ذَكَّيْتُمْ وَمَا ذُبِحَ عَلَى النُّصُبِ وَأَن تَسْتَقْسِمُوا بِالْأَزْلَامِ ۚ ذَٰلِكُمْ فِسْقٌ ۗ الْيَوْمَ يَئِسَ الَّذِينَ كَفَرُوا مِن دِينِكُمْ فَلَا تَخْشَوْهُمْ وَاخْشَوْنِ ۚ الْيَوْمَ أَكْمَلْتُ لَكُمْ دِينَكُمْ وَأَتْمَمْتُ عَلَيْكُمْ نِعْمَتِي وَرَضِيتُ لَكُمُ الْإِسْلَامَ دِينًا ۚ فَمَنِ اضْطُرَّ فِي مَخْمَصَةٍ غَيْرَ مُتَجَانِفٍ لِّإِثْمٍ ۙ فَإِنَّ اللَّهَ غَفُورٌ رَّحِيمٌ
    so the question begs to be asked, how does the subject transition in the same verse from not eating dead animals, to the despair of those who do not share your beliefs, to fear me don't fear them, to i have completed and approved your religion? if an independent source were to be examining this, they would come up with the conclusion that it is more probable that there was a mistake made when these different topics were collated together.
    Jesus established a community of believers and a church. How did it end up into a papacy and Papal states?

    You said Jesus abolished religions but you call yourself Christian and not "member of the body of believers". Are you fooling yourself? Show us where/when Jesus ever refers to his followers as "Christians".

    As for the order of the verses and chapters of the Quran, they're not arranged in chronological order. Even the numbering of the verses are not arranged in chronological order.
     
    Dark Angel

    Dark Angel

    Legendary Member
    I think you are trying to be a nuisance. You abandoned your defense of Mr Augustine,
    you want to put st Augustine on trial for a letter he wrote in which he expressed an opinion that could very well be wrong, yet not only you want to turn a blind eye to someone who had waged more than 27 battles and countless raids, executed his prisoners after surrendering, took many slaves, etc... but you want to consider him as the finest human being who ever walked the earth? nice.
    and you are now interjecting into the discussion of a different subject I am having with another person and you are acting as her personal lawyer.
    you are not addressing a private matter and this is not a private discussion.
    She said Christianity has never being a political movement.
    she said:
    Christianity was never a political movement. There is not a single quote from Christ that can be construed as political. His only concern was the state of people's soul.​
    to pretend otherwise in this day and age, is simply comical.

    Jesus established a community of believers and a church.
    no. Christ did not establish a community of believers and a Church. the Church is the community of believers by definition.
    How did it end up into a papacy and Papal states?
    it developed into many aspects, one of the aspects and branches presented itself as a period where the papacy directly ruled over some territories in Italy. the Church grew, and it became powerful, and its leaders were involved in a conflict of interests, and they took matters into their own hands, for many reasons, still that role is neither intended nor is it encouraged from a Christian perspective.

    You said Jesus abolished religions but you call yourself Christian and not "member of the body of believers".
    I am a follower of Christ, i could care less what that is called, it simply happens to be referred to universally as Christianity, in reference to Christ.

    Are you fooling yourself? Show us where/when Jesus ever refers to his followers as "Christians".
    i think this is the most embarrassing statement you came up with so far, it indicates so many layers of wrong notions stacked one upon the other. you have been arguing for years and years, and yet you do not understand something so basic? you could have gotten a doctorate in Christian theology had you spent this time learning instead of arguing to argue, and blindly i must point.

    As for the order of the verses and chapters of the Quran, they're not arranged in chronological order. Even the numbering of the verses are not arranged in chronological order.
    what you presented was half a verse. i presented the full verse and it is obvious the idea at the beginning of the verse does not match with the idea at the end of the verse. this has nothing to do with the botched chronological arrangement and botched sequencing of the book, it has everything to do however with incoherent thoughts collated together. this is one single verse.

    quran 5-3:
    حُرِّمَتْ عَلَيْكُمُ الْمَيْتَةُ وَالدَّمُ وَلَحْمُ الْخِنزِيرِ وَمَا أُهِلَّ لِغَيْرِ اللَّهِ بِهِ وَالْمُنْخَنِقَةُ وَالْمَوْقُوذَةُ وَالْمُتَرَدِّيَةُ وَالنَّطِيحَةُ وَمَا أَكَلَ السَّبُعُ إِلَّا مَا ذَكَّيْتُمْ وَمَا ذُبِحَ عَلَى النُّصُبِ وَأَن تَسْتَقْسِمُوا بِالْأَزْلَامِ ۚ ذَٰلِكُمْ فِسْقٌ ۗ الْيَوْمَ يَئِسَ الَّذِينَ كَفَرُوا مِن دِينِكُمْ فَلَا تَخْشَوْهُمْ وَاخْشَوْنِ ۚ الْيَوْمَ أَكْمَلْتُ لَكُمْ دِينَكُمْ وَأَتْمَمْتُ عَلَيْكُمْ نِعْمَتِي وَرَضِيتُ لَكُمُ الْإِسْلَامَ دِينًا ۚ فَمَنِ اضْطُرَّ فِي مَخْمَصَةٍ غَيْرَ مُتَجَانِفٍ لِّإِثْمٍ ۙ فَإِنَّ اللَّهَ غَفُورٌ رَّحِيمٌ
     
    Last edited:
    Rafidi

    Rafidi

    Legendary Member
    you want to put st Augustine on trial for a letter he wrote in which he expressed an opinion that could very well be wrong, yet not only you want to turn a blind eye to someone who had waged more than 27 battles and countless raids, executed his prisoners after surrendering, took many slaves, etc... but you want to consider him as the finest human being who ever walked the earth? nice.

    you are not addressing a private matter and this is not a private discussion.

    she said:
    Christianity was never a political movement. There is not a single quote from Christ that can be construed as political. His only concern was the state of people's soul.​
    to pretend otherwise in this day and age, is simply comical.


    no. Christ did not establish a community of believers and a Church. the Church is the community of believers by definition.

    it developed into many aspects, one of the aspects and branches presented itself as a period where the papacy directly ruled over some territories in Italy. the Church grew, and it became powerful, and its leaders were involved in a conflict of interests, and they took matters into their own hands, for many reasons, still that role is neither intended nor is it encouraged from a Christian perspective.


    I am a follower of Christ, i could care less what that is called, it simply happens to be referred to universally as Christianity, in reference to Christ.


    i think this is the most embarrassing statement you came up with so far, it indicates so many layers of wrong notions stacked one upon the other. you have been arguing for years and years, and yet you do not understand something so basic? you could have gotten a doctorate in Christian theology had you spent this time learning instead of arguing to argue, and blindly i must point.


    what you presented was half a verse. i presented the full verse and it is obvious the idea at the beginning of the verse does not match with the idea at the end of the verse. this has nothing to do with the botched chronological arrangement and botched sequencing of the book, it has everything to do however with incoherent thoughts collated together. this is one single verse.

    quran 5-3:
    حُرِّمَتْ عَلَيْكُمُ الْمَيْتَةُ وَالدَّمُ وَلَحْمُ الْخِنزِيرِ وَمَا أُهِلَّ لِغَيْرِ اللَّهِ بِهِ وَالْمُنْخَنِقَةُ وَالْمَوْقُوذَةُ وَالْمُتَرَدِّيَةُ وَالنَّطِيحَةُ وَمَا أَكَلَ السَّبُعُ إِلَّا مَا ذَكَّيْتُمْ وَمَا ذُبِحَ عَلَى النُّصُبِ وَأَن تَسْتَقْسِمُوا بِالْأَزْلَامِ ۚ ذَٰلِكُمْ فِسْقٌ ۗ الْيَوْمَ يَئِسَ الَّذِينَ كَفَرُوا مِن دِينِكُمْ فَلَا تَخْشَوْهُمْ وَاخْشَوْنِ ۚ الْيَوْمَ أَكْمَلْتُ لَكُمْ دِينَكُمْ وَأَتْمَمْتُ عَلَيْكُمْ نِعْمَتِي وَرَضِيتُ لَكُمُ الْإِسْلَامَ دِينًا ۚ فَمَنِ اضْطُرَّ فِي مَخْمَصَةٍ غَيْرَ مُتَجَانِفٍ لِّإِثْمٍ ۙ فَإِنَّ اللَّهَ غَفُورٌ رَّحِيمٌ
    You said:

    "its leaders were involved in a conflict of interests, and they took matters into their own hands, for many reasons, still that role is neither intended nor is it encouraged from a Christian perspective"

    I find most in the above just rambling.

    As for the excerpt quoted from your post, how can you render popes just as ordinary leaders who lived a worldly life? These were successors of Christ. And your friend admitted that the papacy traces its lineage to Peter. And in Catholic teachings, the pope is inspired.

    As for the verse, the pattern of reading and the keys show clearly the ideas are set apart. We know this verse regarded as one was actually two separate verses in the past or in the time of the Prophet. How the verses are arranged or numbered doesnt or hasn't concealed the meanings. We understand it as it is. And if I want to argue it out stubbornly, I can easily tell you that the prohibitions in the first part of the verse pave the way for the second part of the verse in the sense that the prohibitions are part and parcel of the religion being complete. While that it logically correct, the truth is the verses were revealed differently.

    I dont want to get into the intricacies. This has to do with Sunni - Shia narratives. For the Shia, this verse of completion of faith is directly related to the event of Ghadir Khumm. Therefore, inserting that verse of completion of faith into 5:34 was actually meant to downplay/conceal the relevance of the verse in regards to the reason for its revelation, which was after verse 5:67 was revealed urging the Prophet to make a special proclamation relating to sucecssion. It could have been a deliberate act or maybe intentional because the verses are simply not arranged chronologically:

    "O you Messenger, proclaim what has been sent down to you from your Lord; and in case you do not perform (that), then in no way have you proclaimed His Message; and Allah will protect you from mankind. Surely Allah does not guide the disbelieving people."

    This is Sunni - Shia discourse and it doesnt relate to our discussion. Nonetheless, the verse is still found in the Quran. And we have numerous commentaries and authentic narrations which inform us of the significance of 5:34 in relation to verse 5:67. The verse of completion of faith and 5:67 are the last two verses to be revealed. Each was revealed separate. That means they didnt belong on their own to any individual chapter. So they were placed in Surat al Maeedah. And they were placed separately or apart from each other.
     
    Dark Angel

    Dark Angel

    Legendary Member
    You said:

    "its leaders were involved in a conflict of interests, and they took matters into their own hands, for many reasons, still that role is neither intended nor is it encouraged from a Christian perspective"

    I find most in the above just rambling.

    As for the excerpt quoted from your post, how can you render popes just as ordinary leaders who lived a worldly life? These were successors of Christ. And your friend admitted that the papacy traces its lineage to Peter. And in Catholic teachings, the pope is inspired.
    popes are not successors of Christ.
    popes are indeed normal human beings, no matter how pious or religious they are.
    some popes err and fall into temptation.
    some popes lead exemplary lives.
    little does it matter if you find that to be rambling or not, it is simple and clear, and leaves no room for ambiguity.
    As for the verse, the pattern of reading and the keys show clearly the ideas are set apart. We know this verse regarded as one was actually two separate verses in the past or in the time of the Prophet. How the verses are arranged or numbered doesnt or hasn't concealed the meanings. We understand it as it is. And if I want to argue it out stubbornly, I can easily tell you that the prohibitions in the first part of the verse pave the way for the second part of the verse in the sense that the prohibitions are part and parcel of the religion being complete. While that it logically correct, the truth is the verses were revealed differently.
    no God forbids, you never argue blindly or stubbornly.

    I dont want to get into the intricacies. This has to do with Sunni - Shia narratives. For the Shia, this verse of completion of faith is directly related to the event of Ghadir Khumm. Therefore, inserting that verse of completion of faith into 5:34 was actually meant to downplay/conceal the relevance of the verse in regards to the reason for its revelation, which was after verse 5:67 was revealed urging the Prophet to make a special proclamation relating to sucecssion. It could have been a deliberate act or maybe intentional because the verses are simply not arranged chronologically:
    of course, sunni - shiaa strife is a private matter, let's go back to discussing Catholicism vs Donatism and Augustine vs Donatus, these apparently are not private matters and are allowed on the table for discussing.

    "O you Messenger, proclaim what has been sent down to you from your Lord; and in case you do not perform (that), then in no way have you proclaimed His Message; and Allah will protect you from mankind. Surely Allah does not guide the disbelieving people."

    This is Sunni - Shia discourse and it doesnt relate to our discussion. Nonetheless, the verse is still found in the Quran. And we have numerous commentaries and authentic narrations which inform us of the significance of 5:34 in relation to verse 5:67. The verse of completion of faith and 5:67 are the last two verses to be revealed. Each was revealed separate. That means they didnt belong on their own to any individual chapter. So they were placed in Surat al Maeedah. And they were placed separately or apart from each other.
    impressive, let's mingle everything up, mix and match, and arrange things without making sense neither contextually nor chronologically, and then throw the whole thing at people and have them follow it to the letter. brilliant idea.
     
    Rafidi

    Rafidi

    Legendary Member
    popes are not successors of Christ.
    popes are indeed normal human beings, no matter how pious or religious they are.
    some popes err and fall into temptation.
    some popes lead exemplary lives.
    little does it matter if you find to be rambling or not.

    no God forbids, you never argue blindly or stubbornly.
    It doesnt seem you are being honest:

    "The primacy of the bishop of Rome is largely derived from his role as the apostolic successor to Saint Peter, to whom primacy was conferred by Jesus, giving him the Keys of Heaven and the powers of "binding and loosing", naming him as the "rock" upon which the church would be built.

    According to Catholic tradition, the apostolic see[8] of Rome was founded by Saint Peter and Saint Paul in the 1st century. The papacy is one of the most enduring institutions in the world and has had a prominent part in world history.[9] In ancient times the popes helped spread Christianity, and intervened to find resolutions in various doctrinal disputes.[10] In the Middle Ages, they played a role of secular importance in Western Europe, often acting as arbitrators between Christian monarchs.[11][12][13] Currently, in addition to the expansion of the Christian faith and doctrine, the popes are involved in ecumenism and interfaith dialogue, charitable work, and the defense of human rights.[14][15]

    In some periods of history, the papacy, which originally had no temporal powers, accrued wide secular powers rivaling those of temporal rulers. However, in recent centuries the temporal authority of the papacy has declined and the office is now almost exclusively focused on religious matters.[10] By contrast, papal claims of spiritual authority have been increasingly firmly expressed over time, culminating in 1870 with the proclamation of the dogma of papal infallibility for rare occasions when the pope speaks ex cathedra—literally "from the chair (of Saint Peter)"—to issue a formal definition of faith or morals.[10] "



    of course, sunni - shiaa strife is a private matter, let's go back to discussing Catholicism vs Donatism and Augustine vs Donatus, these apparently are not private matters and are allowed on the table for discussing.

    impressive, let's mingle everything up, mix and match, and arrange things without making sense neither contextually nor chronologically, and then throw the whole thing at people and have them follow it to the letter. brilliant idea.
    It isnt a private matter. But this thread is not about Sunni - Shia relations. I didn't tell you or interfere on who's right or in the crux of the dispute between Donatists and Catholics. It isnt my business. To me, both groups dont make much difference spiritually. My entire argument was based on the fact that violence was used to spread Christianity and there was Christian persecution, regardless against who.

    Nothing is being thrown, and everything still makes sense. Otherwise, we wont have known the exact time, place and reasons for revelation. Each verse is understood to the letter.
     
    Dark Angel

    Dark Angel

    Legendary Member
    It doesnt seem you are being honest:

    "The primacy of the bishop of Rome is largely derived from his role as the apostolic successor to Saint Peter, to whom primacy was conferred by Jesus, giving him the Keys of Heaven and the powers of "binding and loosing", naming him as the "rock" upon which the church would be built.

    According to Catholic tradition, the apostolic see[8] of Rome was founded by Saint Peter and Saint Paul in the 1st century. The papacy is one of the most enduring institutions in the world and has had a prominent part in world history.[9] In ancient times the popes helped spread Christianity, and intervened to find resolutions in various doctrinal disputes.[10] In the Middle Ages, they played a role of secular importance in Western Europe, often acting as arbitrators between Christian monarchs.[11][12][13] Currently, in addition to the expansion of the Christian faith and doctrine, the popes are involved in ecumenism and interfaith dialogue, charitable work, and the defense of human rights.[14][15]

    In some periods of history, the papacy, which originally had no temporal powers, accrued wide secular powers rivaling those of temporal rulers. However, in recent centuries the temporal authority of the papacy has declined and the office is now almost exclusively focused on religious matters.[10] By contrast, papal claims of spiritual authority have been increasingly firmly expressed over time, culminating in 1870 with the proclamation of the dogma of papal infallibility for rare occasions when the pope speaks ex cathedra—literally "from the chair (of Saint Peter)"—to issue a formal definition of faith or morals.[10] "


    really? in what regards?
    popes are representatives of Christ?
    popes are not human?
    popes never do wrong and fall into temptation?
    some popes do not lead exemplary lives and some popes do?

    what exactly do you think i am not being honest about?

    It isnt a private matter. But this thread is not about Sunni - Shia relations. I didn't tell you or interfere on who's right or in the crux of the dispute between Donatists and Catholics. It isnt my business. To me, both groups dont make much difference spiritually. My entire argument was based on the fact that violence was used to spread Christianity and there was Christian persecution, regardless against who.
    no. your whole point is to keep arguing blindly. for the millionth time, no one here is denying that Christians resorted to force to spread their faith in some situations. the point we are making is that when they do so it goes straight against the teachings of Christ and Christianity. you simply refuse to acknowledge that, i do not care about convincing you, i am just making this very obvious to prevent any confusion.
    Nothing is being thrown, and everything still makes sense. Otherwise, we wont have known the exact time, place and reasons for revelation. Each verse is understood to the letter.
    you know the chronology by the exact time and place? and yet the very historicity of prophet muhamad is a point of debate and has never been established:

    While the existence of the Islamic prophet Muhammad is established by contemporaneous or near-contemporaneous historical records,[1][2] attempts to distinguish between the historical elements and the ahistorical elements of many of the reports of Muhammad have not been very successful. Hence the historicity of Muhammad, aside from his existence, is debated. How much reliable history there is about Muhammad is disputed, with some sources maintaining that "everything he did and said was recorded",[3] while others insist that we do not have even "a scrap of information of real use in constructing the human history of Muhammad, beyond the bare fact that he once existed".[4]
    but even if we ignore that, you are left with the asbab el nouzoul which rely heavily on the ahadith, most of which are odd by all standards and far from being credible. take Augustine for example he predated the prophet by 200 years, and still left hundreds of letters, and several books. yet there is nothing that proves the historicity of the prophet other than he ambiguously existed. in fact the only mention of such a character was tangential in two sinister notes, one written in reference to a battle waged in 636CE:

    … and in January, they took the word for their lives (did) [the sons of] Emesa [i.e., ̣Hiṃs)], and many villages were ruined with killing by [the Arabs of] Mụhammad and a great number of people were killed and captives [were taken] from Galilee as far as Bēth [...] and those Arabs pitched camp beside [Damascus?] [...] and we saw everywhe[re...] and o[l]ive oil which they brought and them. And on the t[wenty six]th of May went S[ac[ella]rius]... cattle [...] [...] from the vicinity of Emesa and the Romans chased them [...] and on the tenth [of August] the Romans fled from the vicinity of Damascus [...] many [people] some 10,000. And at the turn [of the ye]ar the Romans came; and on the twentieth of August in the year n[ine hundred and forty-]seven there gathered in Gabitha [...] the Romans and great many people were ki[lled of] [the R]omans,​

    and one dated in 634CE, predating the first letter by 2 years.

    AG 945, indiction VII: On Friday, 4 February, [i.e., 634 CE / Dhul Qa‘dah 12 AH] at the ninth hour, there was a battle between the Romans and the Arabs of Mụhammad [Syr. tayyāyē d-Ṃhmt] in Palestine twelve miles east of Gaza. The Romans fled, leaving behind the patrician YRDN (Syr. BRYRDN), whom the Arabs killed. Some 4000 poor villagers of Palestine were killed there, Christians, Jews and Samaritans. The Arabs ravaged the whole region. AG 947, indiction IX: The Arabs invaded the whole of Syria and went down to Persia and conquered it; the Arabs climbed mountain of Mardin and killed many monks there in [the monasteries of] Kedar and Benōthō. There died the blessed man Simon, doorkeeper of Qedar, brother of Thomas the priest.[54]​
    there are many letters that were ones claimed to have been sent by muhamad to neighboring kings, it turned out all of these are forgeries. go figure. and the question is, why would anyone go as far as to fabricate such forgeries? it is weird at best.

    Contents Curious Bruneian Muslim: History: Letter of the Holy Prophet ...
    Prophet Mohammed's Letter to the People of Oman | For One Islam

    In Pictures: Prophet Mohammed's letters that were sent to rulers ...
     
    Rafidi

    Rafidi

    Legendary Member
    really? in what regards?
    popes are representatives of Christ?
    popes are not human?
    popes never do wrong and fall into temptation?
    some popes do not lead exemplary lives and some popes do?

    what exactly do you think i am not being honest about?


    no. your whole point is to keep arguing blindly. for the millionth time, no one here is denying that Christians resorted to force to spread their faith in some situations. the point we are making is that when they do so it goes straight against the teachings of Christ and Christianity. you simply refuse to acknowledge that, i do not care about convincing you, i am just making this very obvious to prevent any confusion.
    It doesnt seem you understand what you read and you accuse me of arguing blindly. Is the pope really not the successor or viceregent of Christ, through Peter, according to Catholic belief? And you say he is only human and not infallible?

    Anyways, if that is what you believe, it is probably a "heretical" Maronite belief and not mainstream Catholicism.

    you know the chronology by the exact time and place? and yet the very historicity of prophet muhamad is a point of debate and has never been established:

    While the existence of the Islamic prophet Muhammad is established by contemporaneous or near-contemporaneous historical records,[1][2] attempts to distinguish between the historical elements and the ahistorical elements of many of the reports of Muhammad have not been very successful. Hence the historicity of Muhammad, aside from his existence, is debated. How much reliable history there is about Muhammad is disputed, with some sources maintaining that "everything he did and said was recorded",[3] while others insist that we do not have even "a scrap of information of real use in constructing the human history of Muhammad, beyond the bare fact that he once existed".[4]
    but even if we ignore that, you are left with the asbab el nouzoul which rely heavily on the ahadith, most of which are odd by all standards and far from being credible. take Augustine for example he predated the prophet by 200 years, and still left hundreds of letters, and several books. yet there is nothing that proves the historicity of the prophet other than he ambiguously existed. in fact the only mention of such a character was tangential in two sinister notes, one written in reference to a battle waged in 636CE:

    … and in January, they took the word for their lives (did) [the sons of] Emesa [i.e., ̣Hiṃs)], and many villages were ruined with killing by [the Arabs of] Mụhammad and a great number of people were killed and captives [were taken] from Galilee as far as Bēth [...] and those Arabs pitched camp beside [Damascus?] [...] and we saw everywhe[re...] and o[l]ive oil which they brought and them. And on the t[wenty six]th of May went S[ac[ella]rius]... cattle [...] [...] from the vicinity of Emesa and the Romans chased them [...] and on the tenth [of August] the Romans fled from the vicinity of Damascus [...] many [people] some 10,000. And at the turn [of the ye]ar the Romans came; and on the twentieth of August in the year n[ine hundred and forty-]seven there gathered in Gabitha [...] the Romans and great many people were ki[lled of] [the R]omans,​

    and one dated in 634CE, predating the first letter by 2 years.

    AG 945, indiction VII: On Friday, 4 February, [i.e., 634 CE / Dhul Qa‘dah 12 AH] at the ninth hour, there was a battle between the Romans and the Arabs of Mụhammad [Syr. tayyāyē d-Ṃhmt] in Palestine twelve miles east of Gaza. The Romans fled, leaving behind the patrician YRDN (Syr. BRYRDN), whom the Arabs killed. Some 4000 poor villagers of Palestine were killed there, Christians, Jews and Samaritans. The Arabs ravaged the whole region. AG 947, indiction IX: The Arabs invaded the whole of Syria and went down to Persia and conquered it; the Arabs climbed mountain of Mardin and killed many monks there in [the monasteries of] Kedar and Benōthō. There died the blessed man Simon, doorkeeper of Qedar, brother of Thomas the priest.[54]​
    there are many letters that were ones claimed to have been sent by muhamad to neighboring kings, it turned out all of these are forgeries. go figure. and the question is, why would anyone go as far as to fabricate such forgeries? it is weird at best.

    View attachment 19433View attachment 19434
    Prophet Mohammed's Letter to the People of Oman | For One Islam's Letter to the People of Oman | For One Islam

    In Pictures: Prophet Mohammed's letters that were sent to rulers ...'s letters that were sent to rulers ...
    Proving Islam or the Prophet's historicity is not subject to the approval of western scholarship. Because western scholarship doesnt have first hand or primary evidences to draw conclusions doesnt necessarily mean ours are not reliable or are entirely unreliable. If you think that way, it is your own headache to take panadol for it. Not ours at all. We do not need western scholarship to inform us or approve of whether the Prophet existed at all or what among the reports or letters on his life are admissible or doubtful. There is an entire science on hadiths. Wherever differences emerge, that is solely based on choice and not on science.

    Dont switch topics. Verse 5:34 and Verse 5:65 are related. If you want to know about how this established, you can study the reports surrounding the Event of Ghadir Khumm and understand what "mutawatir" means in grading hadiths.

    The claims about historicity is quickly switched from debating if the holy Prophet truly existed to how historically accurate reports about his life were. At least he existed.

    Now apply your yardstick that to Jesus. Even his existence is doubtful, aside from what holy scriptures, without anyone's thumprint or signature say and we believe. And all the Christian scriptures are according to one person or the other and not according to Jesus himself. Since you are telling me that Augustine, who lived 200 years before the Prophet, wrote books and therefore, that made him more historical, how many books did Jesus write? Zero.

    The fact that Muhammad (s) left no writings authored by him is perfectly in line or in tune with the miraculous nature of himself. He was unlearned. He couldn't write. How can an unlearned man leave letters? In one of the famous letters he purportedly sent to the Monastery of St Catherine (assuring them of safety), the shape of his palm was used to sign the letter:


    Among the other letters (see below), Muslim do not say the Prophet authored any letter. In all the accounts, scribes wrote on his behalf.


    You are just running from one topic to another.
     
    Last edited:
    Iron Maiden

    Iron Maiden

    Paragon of Bacon
    Orange Room Supporter
    Dude, these people pray to a cross. Do you really think they’re going to be aware of the spiritual status that Muhammad embodies?

    They’re not meant to be taken seriously, so I just have fun with them.
    pray to a cross or pray to a moonstone?
    so many decisions to vibrate to 😂😂😂
     
    Dark Angel

    Dark Angel

    Legendary Member
    It doesnt seem you understand what you read and you accuse me of arguing blindly. Is the pope really not the successor or viceregent of Christ, through Peter, according to Catholic belief?
    there is no such thing as a successor for Christ in Christianity. there is an apostolic see that undertakes the role assumed by Peter, and therefore the pope is the successor of Peter, not the successor of Christ.
    And you say he is only human and not infallible?
    papal infallibility is restricted to doctrinal matters and extremely rarely invoked, it is also a strictly administrative capacity, used only when there is a complete consensus on a article of faith or when a rather important theological matter cannot be solved by a vote. on all other issues the pope is a normal person, who could very well err, make wrong choices, or even succumb to temptation.
    Anyways, if that is what you believe, it is probably a "heretical" Maronite belief and not mainstream Catholicism.
    it is more like this is what you want to believe, and like almost everything else you want to be true, it is not. you can rest assured this is the mainstream Catholic stance.
    Proving Islam or the Prophet's historicity is not subject to the approval of western scholarship. Because western scholarship doesnt have first hand or primary evidences to draw conclusions doesnt necessarily mean ours are not reliable or are entirely unreliable. If you think that way, it is your own headache to take panadol for it. Not ours at all. We do not need western scholarship to inform us or approve of whether the Prophet existed at all or what among the reports or letters on his life are admissible or doubtful. There is an entire science on hadiths. Wherever differences emerge, that is solely based on choice and not on science.
    historicity is very important when you claim you know to the point the time and the place and the circumstances, when these elements are made available, historicity is automatically established, however it is not case. now tradition holds plenty of weight, the problem however occurs when this tradition is plagued by political servitude that finds its way to the scriptures, as is the case here. in other words, you simply no longer have a way to validate whether this is true or not.
    Dont switch topics. Verse 5:34 and Verse 5:65 are related. If you want to know about how this established, you can study the reports surrounding the Event of Ghadir Khumm and understand what "mutawatir" means in grading hadiths.
    problem is that you can not both be right on this issue, either you are wrong or the sunna are wrong. we will not go down that path to investigate, as each side sees things from a different perspective. i am also quite certain this holds plenty of weight for you, but it is not something i would stop on.
    The claims about historicity is quickly switched from debating if the holy Prophet truly existed to how historically accurate reports about his life were. At least he existed.
    what is known is that someone with the name or reference existed, but nothing else is known about that person, no other details are provided. the character's existence is validated in tangential reports, nothing directly pertaining to person himself, and if you examine these accounts they do not seem to be painting a nice picture. the evidence available is of the sort:
    1. and many villages were ruined with killing by [the Arabs of] Mụhammad and a great number of people were killed and captives [were taken] from Galilee as far as Bēth [...]
    2. at the ninth hour, there was a battle between the Romans and the Arabs of Mụhammad [Syr. tayyāyē d-Ṃhmt] in Palestine twelve miles east of Gaza. The Romans fled, leaving behind the patrician YRDN (Syr. BRYRDN), whom the Arabs killed. Some 4000 poor villagers of Palestine were killed there, Christians, Jews and Samaritans. The Arabs ravaged the whole region. AG 947
    that is rather very tangential evidence.

    Now apply your yardstick that to Jesus. Even his existence is doubtful, aside from what holy scriptures, without anyone's thumprint or signature say and we believe. And all the Christian scriptures are according to one person or the other and not according to Jesus himself. Since you are telling me that Augustine, who lived 200 years before the Prophet, wrote books and therefore, that made him more historical, how many books did Jesus write? Zero.
    there is a scholarly consensus on the historicity of Jesus which has been proven by many independent sources and through documented first witness accounts. and that is despite the fact that to the rest of the world at the time, Jesus was a simple person of no consequence from a little town, He was not a military leader nor an earthly king, and yet His historicity is quite established from a scholarly perspective.

    The fact that Muhammad (s) left no writings authored by him is perfectly in line or in tune with the miraculous nature of himself. He was unlearned. He couldn't write. How can an unlearned man leave letters? In one of the famous letters he purportedly sent to the Monastery of St Catherine (assuring them of safety), the shape of his palm was used to sign the letter:


    Among the other letters (see below), Muslim do not say the Prophet authored any letter. In all the accounts, scribes wrote on his behalf.

    You are just running from one topic to another.
    i think you are confused about the concept. historicity doesn't mean that you have to write something yourself to prove your existence, though if available that would seal the case. i simply gave Augustine as an example to point out that his historicity is very well established despite him living almost two centuries before the prophet of islam, and despite the fact that he does not occupy the central stage. someone occupying the central stage in the 7th century should leave ample historically verifiable evidence, but it is not the case.

    additionally, it appears that this one letter a copy of which is held in the monastery, is also fake. the original is nowhere to be found, and even if it is found, there is plenty of evidence of the forgery that can be found on the monastery copy. we can discuss the details if you want, though i prefer you would investigate this yourself. the same is true about the remaining letters claimed to have been sent to heads of states, they contain evidence that they are forged, again do your investigation and we can discuss.
     
    Last edited:
    Steven Gerrard

    Steven Gerrard

    New Member
    قداديس في النبطية بعد إقفال الكنائس لشهرين
    الأحد ١٠ أيار ٢٠٢٠ - 12:24



    أقيم في كنيسة السيدة في مدينة النبطية قداس الاحد، كما بقية الكنائس والاديرة في النبطية الفوقا، كفروة والكفور، بعد إقفال تام لأكثر من شهرين بسبب الاجراءات التي اتخذت لمنع تفشي وباء كورونا، واعتمدت الوقاية والتعقيم والتباعد بين الحضور الذي لم يتجاوز 30 في المئة.
    وشدد كاهن رعية السيدة الخوري كامل إيليا على إلتزام الكنيسة بكل المعايير المفروضة لحماية المصلين من ناحية، والمجتمع من ناحية ثانية.​

    قداديس في النبطية بعد إقفال الكنائس لشهرين | LebanonFiles

    -----------------

    but but but... I thought muslims and christians mix together....
     
    I

    illusion84

    Member
    There is a theory that Islam was established by a "heretic" Jewish/Christian sect.

    Mohamad was a leader/convert to this sect according to this theory.

    Apparently the similarities between Judaism and Islam are too big with the exception of accepting Mary and Jesus as holy figures.

    I will try to find the youtube videos explaining this.
     
    I

    illusion84

    Member
    قداديس في النبطية بعد إقفال الكنائس لشهرين
    الأحد ١٠ أيار ٢٠٢٠ - 12:24



    أقيم في كنيسة السيدة في مدينة النبطية قداس الاحد، كما بقية الكنائس والاديرة في النبطية الفوقا، كفروة والكفور، بعد إقفال تام لأكثر من شهرين بسبب الاجراءات التي اتخذت لمنع تفشي وباء كورونا، واعتمدت الوقاية والتعقيم والتباعد بين الحضور الذي لم يتجاوز 30 في المئة.
    وشدد كاهن رعية السيدة الخوري كامل إيليا على إلتزام الكنيسة بكل المعايير المفروضة لحماية المصلين من ناحية، والمجتمع من ناحية ثانية.​

    قداديس في النبطية بعد إقفال الكنائس لشهرين | LebanonFiles

    -----------------

    but but but... I thought muslims and christians mix together....
    Christians reside all over Lebanon! Even in Dahieh there are still few christians living there.
     
    Steven Gerrard

    Steven Gerrard

    New Member
    There is a theory that Islam was established by a "heretic" Jewish/Christian sect.

    Mohamad was a leader/convert to this sect.

    Apparently the similarity between Judaism and Islam are too big with the exception of accepting Mary and Jesus as holy figures.
    Ebionites.

    They rejected divinity of Christ and believed that Christ was only the Messiah, that's why Mohamed was influenced by it.

    Waraqa bin Naufal, the relative of Khadija was an Ebionite according to most historical sources. the prophet Mohamed was very close to Waraqa.
     
    Steven Gerrard

    Steven Gerrard

    New Member
    Christians lives all over Lebanon! Even in Dahieh there are still few christians living there.
    they do. haret hreik for example still have Christian families living there. Nabatieh still has a christian community.

    try to explain that to @Ice Tea
     
    Rafidi

    Rafidi

    Legendary Member
    there is no such thing as a successor for Christ in Christianity. there is an apostolic see that undertakes the role assumed by Peter, and therefore the pope is the successor of Peter, not the successor of Christ.

    papal infallibility is restricted to doctrinal matters and extremely rarely invoked, it is also a strictly administrative capacity, used only when there is a complete consensus on a article of faith or when a rather important theological matter cannot be solved by a vote. on all other issues the pope is a normal person, who could very well err, make wrong choices, or even succumb to temptation.

    it is more like this is what you want to believe, and like almost everything else you want to be true, it is not. you can rest assured this is the mainstream Catholic stance.
    Pope Francis: Jesus made Peter and his successors, the bishops of Rome, the center of communion in the church


    historicity is very important when you claim you know to the point the time and the place and the circumstances, when these elements are made available, historicity is automatically established, however it is not case. now tradition holds plenty of weight, the problem however occurs when this tradition is plagued by political servitude that finds its way to the scriptures, as is the case here. in other words, you simply no longer have a way to validate whether this is true or not.

    problem is that you can not both be right on this issue, either you are wrong or the sunna are wrong. we will not go down that path to investigate, as each side sees things from a different perspective. i am also quite certain this holds plenty of weight for you, but it is not something i would stop on.
    That is not a correct assumption. There are many ways to separate the wheat from the chaff in the hadith books and in the history books of early Muslim scholars. When we examine the facts, even as Sunni and Shia, believe me, the decision to hold on to certain positions on certain matters end up being a matter of discretion rather than a matter of investigation.

    what is known is that someone with the name or reference existed, but nothing else is known about that person, no other details are provided. the character's existence is validated in tangential reports, nothing directly pertaining to person himself, and if you examine these accounts they do not seem to be painting a nice picture. the evidence available is of the sort:
    Of course this is an assumption which is based on opinion. To say nothing is known and then saying what is known doesnt paint a "nice picture" is first of all a contradiction. Secondly, "nice picture" is an opinion.

    1. and many villages were ruined with killing by [the Arabs of] Mụhammad and a great number of people were killed and captives [were taken] from Galilee as far as Bēth [...]
    2. at the ninth hour, there was a battle between the Romans and the Arabs of Mụhammad [Syr. tayyāyē d-Ṃhmt] in Palestine twelve miles east of Gaza. The Romans fled, leaving behind the patrician YRDN (Syr. BRYRDN), whom the Arabs killed. Some 4000 poor villagers of Palestine were killed there, Christians, Jews and Samaritans. The Arabs ravaged the whole region. AG 947
    that is rather very tangential evidence.
    Can you reference what battle or expedition you are talking about?

    there is a scholarly consensus on the historicity of Jesus which has been proven by many independent sources and through documented first witness accounts. and that is despite the fact that to the rest of the world at the time, Jesus was a simple person of no consequence from a little town, He was not a military leader nor an earthly king, and yet His historicity is quite established from a scholarly perspective.
    That is again an assumption. If you speak with an atheist, you would have them tell you that Jesus might have not existed at all. The existence of Abraham is doubted too. When examining all these claims, you'd only get to the conclusion that these are subjective assumptions and based on opinions that can be influenced by prejudices. The reasons I dont buy into these arguments. In the case of Jesus, for example, they tend to display even more firepower in denying his existence since Jesus led no earthly kingdom and had no children.

    You are from the Middle East and you know how many people here would tell you they descend from the Prophet Muhammad. All the graves around of his companions and family members. All their writings. I really have no time to entertain the discussion. It doesn't make sense to me, especially when the premise is also built around discrediting Muslim or Arab sources of history or records.

    i think you are confused about the concept. historicity doesn't mean that you have to write something yourself to prove your existence, though if available that would seal the case. i simply gave Augustine as an example to point out that his historicity is very well established despite him living almost two centuries before the prophet of islam, and despite the fact that he does not occupy the central stage. someone occupying the central stage in the 7th century should leave ample historically verifiable evidence, but it is not the case.
    The existence of records and how well preserved and passed down are generally used along with artifacts. The assumption and the methodology used to reach that assumption become questionable when available sources are discredited based on the researcher's own beliefs and influences. Determining historicity becomes mainly a point of view, simce nothing is 100% and can be contested either to prove or disprove. The truth of it is that there is no 100% way of reliving the past or knowing everything or exactly what had happened on almost all ancient events.

    additionally, it appears that this one letter a copy of which is held in the monastery, is also fake. the original is nowhere to be found, and even if it is found, there is plenty of evidence of the forgery that can be found on the monastery copy. we can discuss the details if you want, though i prefer you would investigate this yourself. the same is true about the remaining letters claimed to have been sent to heads of states, they contain evidence that they are forged, again do your investigation and we can discuss.
    These letters, as far as I am concerned are only good to be saved in a museum. When it comes to faith, they really do not play a big role, if any, in my view. Accounts and documents are largely passed down through generally held beliefs. Most at times, the people who pass down the accounts or the facts surrounding a document or happening come under scrutiny. In the case of the tragedy of Karbala, for example, there is no doubt the event did take place. When it comes to the actual event itself and the details surrounding it, there are legends that have found their way into the narrations. That isnt enough to discredit the entire event and cover our faces and say because there exist unreliable narrations, therefore everything about the event must be rejected. We cant throw out both the baby out and the bath water. If we do, what we know of the past would become a tiny fraction of the tiny drop in the ocean we presently know about. Some Wahhabis even claim that Imam Hussain was not martyred in Karbala but he made up with Yazeed and that Imam Hussain was part of the army of Yazeed that invaded Cyprus and the Imam was martyred in Cyprus. That is laughable and more or less an expression or admission of embarssment that they have chosen to stand on the side of Yazeed the tyrant and justify his actions. I'm sure you wouldn't buy that and you wont tell me either the tragedy of Karbala did not happen. It is at the core of the division among Muslims. To deny some events and personages, when you hear people talking about historicity, it sometimes portray a universal conspiracy theory that was preordained before existence!

    The number of people who transmit the event, their uprightness, and how widely reported the event is and how old and how uniform and lacking contradictions the reports are when compared can all be used to draw conclusions. That means even the names of narrators are examined closely and the time they were born and where they lived etc.
     
    Dark Angel

    Dark Angel

    Legendary Member
    Pope Francis: Jesus made Peter and his successors, the bishops of Rome, the center of communion in the church

    precisely. the popes are the successors of Peter, not the successors of Christ, and Rome is the center of communion in the Church.

    That is not a correct assumption. There are many ways to separate the wheat from the chaff in the hadith books and in the history books of early Muslim scholars. When we examine the facts, even as Sunni and Shia, believe me, the decision to hold on to certain positions on certain matters end up being a matter of discretion rather than a matter of investigation.
    the facts are lost with the ages, perception changes, and much information becomes fuzzy or even completely lost when not properly documented. there is a reason why scholars of history when studying a given event, always attach more weight on documents that are closer in time to the event, because they know very well that the further is the gap in time between an event and the time it is documented, the less accurate this documentation is. this scenario is much different. the people who forged many of the ahadith could have easily forged the tawator reference, and at least from an accurate scholarly perspective you cannot separate the wheat from the chaff. the identification and the separation in the religious school of thought appear to be circumstantial and relaying on evolving traditions rather than an exact approach.

    Of course this is an assumption which is based on opinion. To say nothing is known and then saying what is known doesnt paint a "nice picture" is first of all a contradiction. Secondly, "nice picture" is an opinion.

    Can you reference what battle or expedition you are talking about?
    it is not about the specific battle, it is more that even in the records of these battles they simply refer to arab invaders, they do refer to them as the "arabs of Muhammad", and this is the extent of the historical records in reference to the prophet of islam, there is no other reference on records, until many years later.
    That is again an assumption. If you speak with an atheist, you would have them tell you that Jesus might have not existed at all.
    actually they do, however historicity is not a matter of opinion, it is rather a matter of records, and the records say otherwise.

    The existence of Abraham is doubted too. When examining all these claims, you'd only get to the conclusion that these are subjective assumptions and based on opinions that can be influenced by prejudices. The reasons I dont buy into these arguments. In the case of Jesus, for example, they tend to display even more firepower in denying his existence since Jesus led no earthly kingdom and had no children.
    it goes without saying the historicity of abraham cannot be validated, and has to be taken on faith.

    You are from the Middle East and you know how many people here would tell you they descend from the Prophet Muhammad. All the graves around of his companions and family members. All their writings. I really have no time to entertain the discussion. It doesn't make sense to me, especially when the premise is also built around discrediting Muslim or Arab sources of history or records.
    this is also part of the issue, i doubt that these claims are valid as well, otherwise maternal mitochondrial research going back to the prophet's daughter would have been published by now. however many of the families claiming a lineage from the prophet are seemingly unrelated as far as DNA is concerned, i have read something to this regards a few years ago but can no longer find the article in question.

    The existence of records and how well preserved and passed down are generally used along with artifacts. The assumption and the methodology used to reach that assumption become questionable when available sources are discredited based on the researcher's own beliefs and influences. Determining historicity becomes mainly a point of view, simce nothing is 100% and can be contested either to prove or disprove. The truth of it is that there is no 100% way of reliving the past or knowing everything or exactly what had happened on almost all ancient events.
    the degree of certitude is usually dependent on how detailed is the document, and how credible the authorship is. it is however remarkable how late the hadith and the sira were put into writing, given that almost everything of importance was being written down and recorded in that age, it thus follows that most of the information relating to these scriptures is rather fuzzy at best, and not really accurate as it is closer in to "hear-say" by nature. add to it the shady authorship of many hadith, and it becomes a real fiasco.

    now fast forward to current times, the very tawator system is an indication that you cannot rather know if a given hadith is truly sahih or not, but you attach a probability factor to its credibility, and it turns out that some are more credible than others, and even then you have to take their truth on faith.
    These letters, as far as I am concerned are only good to be saved in a museum. When it comes to faith, they really do not play a big role, if any, in my view. Accounts and documents are largely passed down through generally held beliefs. Most at times, the people who pass down the accounts or the facts surrounding a document or happening come under scrutiny.
    this is true. in fact there are many forged artifacts in museums mostly around the islamic world with objects said to belong to prophets and awliya2 that are obvious forgeries but still go on display, and that says more about the local cultures than it says about faith. still, if you follow the track back in time, each of these artifacts and locations were first presented or built by someone who knew very well he was misleading people. now this happens all over the world, however elsewhere authenticity matters, and if an item is invalidated through scholarly works or tests, then it will be made known and the item is downgraded to a forgery, which still gets to be displayed nevertheless, but under the correct title.

    In the case of the tragedy of Karbala, for example, there is no doubt the event did take place. When it comes to the actual event itself and the details surrounding it, there are legends that have found their way into the narrations. That isnt enough to discredit the entire event and cover our faces and say because there exist unreliable narrations, therefore everything about the event must be rejected. We cant throw out both the baby out and the bath water. If we do, what we know of the past would become a tiny fraction of the tiny drop in the ocean we presently know about. Some Wahhabis even claim that Imam Hussain was not martyred in Karbala but he made up with Yazeed and that Imam Hussain was part of the army of Yazeed that invaded Cyprus and the Imam was martyred in Cyprus. That is laughable and more or less an expression or admission of embarssment that they have chosen to stand on the side of Yazeed the tyrant and justify his actions. I'm sure you wouldn't buy that and you wont tell me either the tragedy of Karbala did not happen. It is at the core of the division among Muslims. To deny some events and personages, when you hear people talking about historicity, it sometimes portray a universal conspiracy theory that was preordained before existence!
    no arguments there, i also share this same perspective. i think the majority of the karbala account is credible, including parading the decapitated heads and the convoy of the prisoners in cities and towns, the route chosen was also not random.

    The number of people who transmit the event, their uprightness, and how widely reported the event is and how old and how uniform and lacking contradictions the reports are when compared can all be used to draw conclusions. That means even the names of narrators are examined closely and the time they were born and where they lived etc.
    no need to go all the way back in history, look at what is going on today. every single political case that goes to court is surrounded with so much false advertisement and fanfare to the point where even when we are alive in the same time, we are not capable of determining truth from lies, and we usually build our opinions based on our own personal judgment.
     
    Last edited:
    Top