Christian-Muslim Relations In the Middle-East

Rafidi

Rafidi

Legendary Member
precisely. the popes are the successors of Peter, not the successors of Christ, and Rome is the center of communion in the Church.
I really dont know if you can hear yourself say what you are saying. This point is very obvious and doesnt need much argument or dragging.

The popes are successors of Peter. Peter was successor or appointed by Jesus to the position of leadership after him. On whose authority therefore are the popes ruling? You may still insist and say on Peter's authority. That is alright. But on whose authority was Peter leading? Jesus. So it is accurate to say figuratively at least, that the popes are the heirs of Jesus from a neutral observer's comment on the papacy.

I know what some of them have done in history was awful and not representative of people claiming to be successors to Christ. But it is what it is.

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.
You seem to get the wrong idea about tawator. This has to do more with existing reports and records from near and far, than proliferating chains of narrators. And these reports were circulating and common knowledge among the people. The hadith fabricated by the Ummayads are clearly identified. They most surround the attribution of negative things to their enemies and attribution of good things to their predecessors and supporters.

Let me give you an example. If someone after me creates 40 narrations and with a chain of 40 narrators from every country. 40 narrators, who are trustworthy, is required for a narration, a single narration to be regarded as mutawatir. So if they claim I had a meeting with Donald Trump and he was observing the five daily prayers. And this ends up written down. First of all, who are if you want to examine this, there are so many ways to. Imagine another event is narrated that Trump was seen in a church during Easter receiving communion. Or that he died and was buried in a casket. The detail that he was buried in a casket would create doubts. Muslims dont bury in a casket. So it could be that he became a Muslim and then changed his faith at a later time. Now imagine, there is a record that says I wanted to travel to the US and i was denied a visa and i never stepped foot in the US. The entire narration becomes subject to doubts and contradictions. You will need many other sources and reasons to have a comparative study of materials and draw a convincing conclusion.

Then they can find out when did I travel to the US. Did I have any links to the White House. Most of these hadith narrations are about important people to the faith.

Then you will have to check who the narrators are. And at how many places was the narration known. Creating hundred chains is one thing. But the very people compiling the books normally travel far and wide to gather their materials.

Now imagine if you travel to Brazil and you hear the same thing about me that you've heard in 10 other countries. There was no internet or phones.

Take for example Surat Abasa. The chapter starts: "He frowned and turned his face when the blind man approached him". When you read these two verses, the question arises, who frowned and turned his faced because he was approached by a blind Perrin seeking alms? There are Sunnis to this day who believe it was the Prophet who frowned and turned his face away. And that this chapter was revealed cautioning him. When you check the records, you see for certain that this wasnt the understanding of the chapter in earlier years and at all places. When there is a fabrication of a hadith by the Umayyad, there was a political motive. There is always or at least, most times, a motive for fabricating hadiths. The same apply to some other hadiths relating to the battles of the Prophet. He was painted as temperamental and vengeful etc. These are the hadith that the Christian missionary would spot and then try to use against the Muslim. That: look how bad your Prophet was. But when we open the Quran, which we preserved before any hadith, we find a different account:

"So by mercy from Allah, [O Muhammad], you were lenient with them. And if you had been rude [in speech] and harsh in heart, they would have disbanded from about you. So pardon them and ask forgiveness for them and consult them in the matter. And when you have decided, then rely upon Allah . Indeed, Allah loves those who rely [upon Him]. (3:159)

the hadiths fabricated by the Umayyads often times was meant to cover up for their own actions or to use what they attribute to the Prophet to justify their own action.

Take also Abu Bakr's testimony that prophets do NOT leave inheritance. When such a thing is said, it is said for a purpose. It was because he wanted to deny the Prophet's daughter Prophet's her inheritance. The land of fadak was a big estate that produced a lot of agricultural produce. If the Prophet's daughter would have had that land, it would have been enough to raise armies and take care of them. This is money in politics in the old days. So the gang of Saqifah (the place where the coup against Imam Ali was staged) laid hands on the inheritance. If she would have taken it, it would have empowered Imam Ali to raise an army to defeat the coup plotters.

And it is recorded the daughter of the Prophet protested and denied knowledge of that claim that prophets do not leave inheritance. So there were reports which recorded her disapproval of the claim. She even went on to cite certain Quran verses which speak of prophets leaving inheritance. The division in Islam ensured that concealing the truth was difficult. The events that occured would always bring out the truth or the competing perspectives. There is really no report in isolation. If there is, it is rejected. For example the report that there are 72 virgins in paradise. It is an isolated one. Or the hadith a Jew known as Abdullah Ibn Saba who created the Shia sect. You can claim Ibn Saba creatrd a sect. But what are the beliefs of the sect. Are they justified in light of the Quran and hadith available and accepted in Sunni siurces? In the end, this hadith is traced to one person: Saif Ibn Umar al Tamimi, an Umayyad scribe.


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 could have been after the Prophet.

actually they do, however historicity is not a matter of opinion, it is rather a matter of records, and the records say otherwise.

it goes without saying the historicity of abraham cannot be validated, and has to be taken on faith.
That is exactly the point. There will always be claims and counter claims. In such a scenario, what is important is to deal with everything as a whole. I have encountered an atheist who is so sure that Muhammad (s) never existed. I cant think of an answer without thinking of the tragedy of Karbala. How could he not have existed when his grandchildren were massacred and the event has been passed down from generation to generation? Some claims dont make sense. Some do. Some are contradicted. Some are based on faith. In the end, it becomes a matter of choice. Everyone will still have to choose what he wants to believe or not to believe, even if the evidence is much and overwhelmingly accurate.

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.
If a study were to be published on the DNA of those who claim descent to the Prophet, what I'd look for would be a pattern. In fact, this would be so helpful to the many people who might not be aware they are descendants of the Prophet. And there would be some disappointed that they are not or had held on to a false belief on their descent. It would be great to have such a standardized test. To prove that some do not descend from the Prophet will not negate or discredit the established pattern to determine those who are descended. As far as some are proven to be related, and a standard test can be designed, that is all that matters.

A friend of mine from Pakistan mentioned that many among his people and also in India who claim to be sayyids might actually not be. They claimed to be at a point because it was an honorific title. Then the question arises, were they always known to be sayyids? Can they trace their lineage? Are they well known people throughout the ages? Is there a family tree?

By all means, if a DNA test can be used, it would be a commendable thing even if majority end up disappointed.

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.
The sira is biography. There is no doubt it is based on deductions and rely on other sources to present what the author believes are facts or to base his opinions and formulations on.

What would be worthy of note are the hadiths and history books.

After the death of the Prophet, the first Sunni caliph prevented the writing of the hadiths. The excuse was that he didn't want people to mix up between what was hadith and what was Quran. The reason for that is quite clear to us. That is another topic. Nonetheless, the records contrary to the ones fabricated by the Ummayads reached us and the ones used to counter the beliefs of the majority are found in the books possessed by that same majority. There is no doubt the hadiths are problematic. But we cant throw out both the baby and the bathwater. Somewhat, truth can be ascertain. When even your opponents hold records that make your case valid, then that's all that is important. The reason in most Shia - Sunni debates, the Shia have less need to recourse to Shia hadith sources and rely on the Sunni hadiths almost entirely to make our case to a Sunni audience. Whatever we claim or say that is found in ours is in their own books.

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.

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.


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.


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.
When you hold such a point of view, it looks very scary when theoretically expressed. When you come to the practical aspect in examining each individual fact or claim and certain events the wheat can still be separated from the chaff in most cases.

Take the Bible for example and what is believed to be interpolations. During back and forth translations, meanings and words have been lost and new word have been included. The original manuscripts differ.

Take for example the most important verse in the Christian New testament. John 3:16. Among the oldest manuscripts, we realize therein difference with the verse we have in the Bibke versions circulating today. Even the more recent RSV version of the Bible holds something different. Because you find difference doesnt mean you will throw out everything. And when making a conclusion, you always go for the farthest or oldest available record, as you rightly stated. Based on that you draw conclusion. But we cant also create a mind full of confusion and abandon all the materials because we have observed discrepancies. If historical records are not contestable and are all accurately recorded and preserved, and clearly understood as intended, most of our differences wont exist today. We all would be one people. Therefore, when I speak with an atheist, and he wants to tell me about historicity and swear to his mom that the Prophet didnt exist, I know he has a motive. I can therefore conclude that his examination of records and the conclusion he has drawn is biased. No matter the records and how they are examined, historicity is a deduction by fallible men influenced by their motives and beliefs. If historicity is a tool, even the tool is now debatable. You can have two people speaking about historicity and both drawing different conclusions. An atheist can claim Jesus never existed based on historicity. A Christian would believe differently speaking in the name of the same methodology. Just like two scientists can believe and disbelieve in the existence of God using scientific facts. In the end, it is all about choice and free will.
 
  • Advertisement
  • Dark Angel

    Dark Angel

    Legendary Member
    I really dont know if you can hear yourself say what you are saying. This point is very obvious and doesnt need much argument or dragging.

    The popes are successors of Peter. Peter was successor or appointed by Jesus to the position of leadership after him. On whose authority therefore are the popes ruling? You may still insist and say on Peter's authority. That is alright. But on whose authority was Peter leading? Jesus. So it is accurate to say figuratively at least, that the popes are the heirs of Jesus from a neutral observer's comment on the papacy.

    I know what some of them have done in history was awful and not representative of people claiming to be successors to Christ. But it is what it is.
    you have issues.
    1. the Church is established by the authority of Christ.
    2. the leadership of the Church was given to Peter.
    3. the Pope is Peter's successor's not the successor of Christ.
    4. there is no such thing as the successor of Christ in Christianity.
    5. the Pope is only infallible on matters relating to doctrine when there is either complete consensus or an impasse has been reached that cannot be resolved by a vote.
    6. on all other issues the Pope is a normal human being who can sin, make wrong choices, and even succumb to temptations.

    i you have so much trouble accepting a very well documented subject with easily verifiable fact, then you are really wasting your time and that of others. but that is very telling. if this was the prevailing mentality, then one can only wonder how things must have been like when the hadith was written based on hearsay more than 200 years after the fact.

    You seem to get the wrong idea about tawator. This has to do more with existing reports and records from near and far, than proliferating chains of narrators. And these reports were circulating and common knowledge among the people. The hadith fabricated by the Ummayads are clearly identified. They most surround the attribution of negative things to their enemies and attribution of good things to their predecessors and supporters.

    Let me give you an example. If someone after me creates 40 narrations and with a chain of 40 narrators from every country. 40 narrators, who are trustworthy, is required for a narration, a single narration to be regarded as mutawatir. So if they claim I had a meeting with Donald Trump and he was observing the five daily prayers. And this ends up written down. First of all, who are if you want to examine this, there are so many ways to. Imagine another event is narrated that Trump was seen in a church during Easter receiving communion. Or that he died and was buried in a casket. The detail that he was buried in a casket would create doubts. Muslims dont bury in a casket. So it could be that he became a Muslim and then changed his faith at a later time. Now imagine, there is a record that says I wanted to travel to the US and i was denied a visa and i never stepped foot in the US. The entire narration becomes subject to doubts and contradictions. You will need many other sources and reasons to have a comparative study of materials and draw a convincing conclusion.

    Then they can find out when did I travel to the US. Did I have any links to the White House. Most of these hadith narrations are about important people to the faith.

    Then you will have to check who the narrators are. And at how many places was the narration known. Creating hundred chains is one thing. But the very people compiling the books normally travel far and wide to gather their materials.

    Now imagine if you travel to Brazil and you hear the same thing about me that you've heard in 10 other countries. There was no internet or phones.

    Take for example Surat Abasa. The chapter starts: "He frowned and turned his face when the blind man approached him". When you read these two verses, the question arises, who frowned and turned his faced because he was approached by a blind Perrin seeking alms? There are Sunnis to this day who believe it was the Prophet who frowned and turned his face away. And that this chapter was revealed cautioning him. When you check the records, you see for certain that this wasnt the understanding of the chapter in earlier years and at all places. When there is a fabrication of a hadith by the Umayyad, there was a political motive. There is always or at least, most times, a motive for fabricating hadiths. The same apply to some other hadiths relating to the battles of the Prophet. He was painted as temperamental and vengeful etc. These are the hadith that the Christian missionary would spot and then try to use against the Muslim. That: look how bad your Prophet was. But when we open the Quran, which we preserved before any hadith, we find a different account:

    "So by mercy from Allah, [O Muhammad], you were lenient with them. And if you had been rude [in speech] and harsh in heart, they would have disbanded from about you. So pardon them and ask forgiveness for them and consult them in the matter. And when you have decided, then rely upon Allah . Indeed, Allah loves those who rely [upon Him]. (3:159)

    the hadiths fabricated by the Umayyads often times was meant to cover up for their own actions or to use what they attribute to the Prophet to justify their own action.

    Take also Abu Bakr's testimony that prophets do NOT leave inheritance. When such a thing is said, it is said for a purpose. It was because he wanted to deny the Prophet's daughter Prophet's her inheritance. The land of fadak was a big estate that produced a lot of agricultural produce. If the Prophet's daughter would have had that land, it would have been enough to raise armies and take care of them. This is money in politics in the old days. So the gang of Saqifah (the place where the coup against Imam Ali was staged) laid hands on the inheritance. If she would have taken it, it would have empowered Imam Ali to raise an army to defeat the coup plotters.

    And it is recorded the daughter of the Prophet protested and denied knowledge of that claim that prophets do not leave inheritance. So there were reports which recorded her disapproval of the claim. She even went on to cite certain Quran verses which speak of prophets leaving inheritance. The division in Islam ensured that concealing the truth was difficult. The events that occured would always bring out the truth or the competing perspectives. There is really no report in isolation. If there is, it is rejected. For example the report that there are 72 virgins in paradise. It is an isolated one. Or the hadith a Jew known as Abdullah Ibn Saba who created the Shia sect. You can claim Ibn Saba creatrd a sect. But what are the beliefs of the sect. Are they justified in light of the Quran and hadith available and accepted in Sunni siurces? In the end, this hadith is traced to one person: Saif Ibn Umar al Tamimi, an Umayyad scribe.




    That could have been after the Prophet.



    That is exactly the point. There will always be claims and counter claims. In such a scenario, what is important is to deal with everything as a whole. I have encountered an atheist who is so sure that Muhammad (s) never existed. I cant think of an answer without thinking of the tragedy of Karbala. How could he not have existed when his grandchildren were massacred and the event has been passed down from generation to generation? Some claims dont make sense. Some do. Some are contradicted. Some are based on faith. In the end, it becomes a matter of choice. Everyone will still have to choose what he wants to believe or not to believe, even if the evidence is much and overwhelmingly accurate.



    If a study were to be published on the DNA of those who claim descent to the Prophet, what I'd look for would be a pattern. In fact, this would be so helpful to the many people who might not be aware they are descendants of the Prophet. And there would be some disappointed that they are not or had held on to a false belief on their descent. It would be great to have such a standardized test. To prove that some do not descend from the Prophet will not negate or discredit the established pattern to determine those who are descended. As far as some are proven to be related, and a standard test can be designed, that is all that matters.

    A friend of mine from Pakistan mentioned that many among his people and also in India who claim to be sayyids might actually not be. They claimed to be at a point because it was an honorific title. Then the question arises, were they always known to be sayyids? Can they trace their lineage? Are they well known people throughout the ages? Is there a family tree?

    By all means, if a DNA test can be used, it would be a commendable thing even if majority end up disappointed.



    The sira is biography. There is no doubt it is based on deductions and rely on other sources to present what the author believes are facts or to base his opinions and formulations on.

    What would be worthy of note are the hadiths and history books.

    After the death of the Prophet, the first Sunni caliph prevented the writing of the hadiths. The excuse was that he didn't want people to mix up between what was hadith and what was Quran. The reason for that is quite clear to us. That is another topic. Nonetheless, the records contrary to the ones fabricated by the Ummayads reached us and the ones used to counter the beliefs of the majority are found in the books possessed by that same majority. There is no doubt the hadiths are problematic. But we cant throw out both the baby and the bathwater. Somewhat, truth can be ascertain. When even your opponents hold records that make your case valid, then that's all that is important. The reason in most Shia - Sunni debates, the Shia have less need to recourse to Shia hadith sources and rely on the Sunni hadiths almost entirely to make our case to a Sunni audience. Whatever we claim or say that is found in ours is in their own books.



    When you hold such a point of view, it looks very scary when theoretically expressed. When you come to the practical aspect in examining each individual fact or claim and certain events the wheat can still be separated from the chaff in most cases.

    Take the Bible for example and what is believed to be interpolations. During back and forth translations, meanings and words have been lost and new word have been included. The original manuscripts differ.

    Take for example the most important verse in the Christian New testament. John 3:16. Among the oldest manuscripts, we realize therein difference with the verse we have in the Bibke versions circulating today. Even the more recent RSV version of the Bible holds something different. Because you find difference doesnt mean you will throw out everything. And when making a conclusion, you always go for the farthest or oldest available record, as you rightly stated. Based on that you draw conclusion. But we cant also create a mind full of confusion and abandon all the materials because we have observed discrepancies. If historical records are not contestable and are all accurately recorded and preserved, and clearly understood as intended, most of our differences wont exist today. We all would be one people. Therefore, when I speak with an atheist, and he wants to tell me about historicity and swear to his mom that the Prophet didnt exist, I know he has a motive. I can therefore conclude that his examination of records and the conclusion he has drawn is biased. No matter the records and how they are examined, historicity is a deduction by fallible men influenced by their motives and beliefs. If historicity is a tool, even the tool is now debatable. You can have two people speaking about historicity and both drawing different conclusions. An atheist can claim Jesus never existed based on historicity. A Christian would believe differently speaking in the name of the same methodology. Just like two scientists can believe and disbelieve in the existence of God using scientific facts. In the end, it is all about choice and free will.
    ok.. i think we are done. enjoy your holy month, pray or something.
     
    Rafidi

    Rafidi

    Legendary Member
    you have issues.
    1. the Church is established by the authority of Christ.
    2. the leadership of the Church was given to Peter.
    3. the Pope is Peter's successor's not the successor of Christ.
    4. there is no such thing as the successor of Christ in Christianity.
    5. the Pope is only infallible on matters relating to doctrine when there is either complete consensus or an impasse has been reached that cannot be resolved by a vote.
    6. on all other issues the Pope is a normal human being who can sin, make wrong choices, and even succumb to temptations.

    i you have so much trouble accepting a very well documented subject with easily verifiable fact, then you are really wasting your time and that of others. but that is very telling. if this was the prevailing mentality, then one can only wonder how things must have been like when the hadith was written based on hearsay more than 200 years after the fact.


    ok.. i think we are done. enjoy your holy month, pray or something.
    There is no need or cause to sound frustration. I love you, habibi inta.

    You have issues with hadith books compiled after 200 years because the government deliberately prevented or banned recording of hadiths, so as, according to Sunnis, the hadiths wont mix with the Quran or according to Shia, so as the caliphate can escape the recorded words of the Prophet surrounding the topic of succession.

    - But you have no problem whatsoever on the fact that the Bible was COMPILED 400 years after the event into the present form we currently have.

    - And before that was achieved, many other books that were tagged apocryphal were excluded by the bishops and thrown away because they contradict church doctrines.

    - And even the ones we presently find in today's Bible, they were gradually added. They were not all deemed canonical at the same time.

    - Then, after some centuries, the protestants threw out 7 books. The Catholic Bible is made up of 73 books. The Protestant Bible had 66 books.

    But, you will find a way to justify these and make it look perfect.

    And all this is even more heart wrenching because we are talking of a holy book. A book compiled and tailored to suit church doctrines. Shouldn't t be the other way: doctrines be examined in light of the holy books and not holy books examined in light of doctrines?

    No Muslim considers hadith compilations as holy books. They are subject to scrutiny. But the hadith books you regard as "holy" are not subject to the same scrutiny.

    And the first factor that is used to determine whether a hadith narration is correct is putting it to the test of the Quran, which was compiled immediately after the Prophet's death from the original records penned down during the lifetime of the Prophet.

    But guess what? You said Muhammad (s) didnt write a book like St. Augustine of Hippo did write about his exploits to "compel" another sect to adopt or forcibly convert them to his mainstream version or sect of Christianity. Muhammad (s) was unlearned. But Muhammad (s) made sure the Book of Allah, which he insisted was never his own authorship, was recorded by scribes after he received revelations. Yet, among the 27 books of the New Testament and the many others excluded and considered apocryphal, Jesus not only did not pen down any, he also did not ensure anything was recorded for future generations.

    You should have some reflection to do and ask yourself why? That which is holy scripture of Christianity took its final form 400 years after Jesus. Sometimes, it is indeed good to see the plank on your eyes, than the sawdust in your brother's eye. :p ;) :)
     
    Last edited:
    Indie

    Indie

    Legendary Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    Do you believe in hell fire? Does Christianity promote a belief in eternal damnation for "evildoers"?
    I have not read the last couple of pages on this thread. When I can I will get to it, but for now I will answer this.

    Hell is not somewhere God sends you out of anger. It's a state of being that comes from an individual's choice to turn away from God. God is pure love. People cannot be happy without that love. If they choose to turn away from it, they choose to turn away from heaven.

    God wants everyone to be good and to spend eternity in heaven with Him. But because he gave us free will, he will not force anyone to do as He wishes.
     
    SeaAb

    SeaAb

    Legendary Member
    Staff member
    Super Penguin
    I have not read the last couple of pages on this thread. When I can I will get to it, but for now I will answer this.

    Hell is not somewhere God sends you out of anger. It's a state of being that comes from an individual's choice to turn away from God. God is pure love. People cannot be happy without that love. If they choose to turn away from it, they choose to turn away from heaven.

    God wants everyone to be good and to spend eternity in heaven with Him. But because he gave us free will, he will not force anyone to do as He wishes.
    That's not a universal belief among all Christians, ma hek? That's one point of view...
     
    Rafidi

    Rafidi

    Legendary Member
    I have not read the last couple of pages on this thread. When I can I will get to it, but for now I will answer this.

    Hell is not somewhere God sends you out of anger. It's a state of being that comes from an individual's choice to turn away from God. God is pure love. People cannot be happy without that love. If they choose to turn away from it, they choose to turn away from heaven.

    God wants everyone to be good and to spend eternity in heaven with Him. But because he gave us free will, he will not force anyone to do as He wishes.
    Can you provide us with some Bible verses, both OT and NT, describing the hell fire. Thanks.
     
    Indie

    Indie

    Legendary Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    That's not a universal belief among all Christians, ma hek? That's one point of view...
    This is the Catholic view. Other Christians might share this view.

    But when people separate from the original, Catholic church, they come up with all kinds of notions, according to their whim. So, it's possible that some people who call themselves Christian have different beliefs on the subject. It does not make their beliefs accurate.
     
    Indie

    Indie

    Legendary Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    @Lebmonage

    If you're interested in knowing about what the Bible contains and what it represents for Christians, this video can answer some of your questions very articulately.


    The Bible is not the Christian equivalent of the Quran.

    I encourage you to listen to the Christian explanation of what their own book is or isn't, rather than innacurate information coming from people who don't even practice the faith.
     
    Indie

    Indie

    Legendary Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    @Lebmonage I am curious to know what you think of what Nabeel Qureshi says in this video.

    His talk starts at 12:37

     
    Rafidi

    Rafidi

    Legendary Member



    Thank you. Looking forward to your reply.
    So he indicated hell is a destination/place. And the rest of the explanation has to do with who sends who to hell. Or how it is people's fault for end up in hell and not God's fault. Right?
     
    Nevermore

    Nevermore

    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....
    Christians reside 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
    @Ice Tea isn't wrong in relaying fears of MENA Christians becoming an endangered species or constantly being cudgeled with attacks from every perceivable social counterpart. Those Christians in Nabatieh and Dahyeh are no more than relics of a troubled history embodying a forlorn present best represented in the discursive ****ensian dichotomy on this very subject that views them either as prickly nuisances preventing the establishment of a regional dream state (the strict Pan-Arabist view) or as sectarian fascist tribalists no different only from the most extreme elements of their Muslim peers (the orientalist, faux secular, post-sectarian, and Pan-Arabist view). In other words, they're stuck between a rock and a hard place and there's no way out.
     
    Steven Gerrard

    Steven Gerrard

    New Member
    @Ice Tea isn't wrong in relaying fears of MENA Christians becoming an endangered species or constantly being cudgeled with attacks from every perceivable social counterpart. Those Christians in Nabatieh and Dahyeh are no more than relics of a troubled history embodying a forlorn present best represented in the discursive ****ensian dichotomy on this very subject that views them either as prickly nuisances preventing the establishment of a regional dream state (the strict Pan-Arabist view) or as sectarian fascist tribalists no different only from the most extreme elements of their Muslim peers (the orientalist, faux secular, post-sectarian, and Pan-Arabist view). In other words, they're stuck between a rock and a hard place and there's no way out.
    - In Lebanon they are not
    - No, in Nabatieh they are not relics and their troubled history is shared by other sects that lived among them (Palestinian and Israeli occupation).
    - Pan Arabism is dead, it died long time ago. Everyone chooses to identify as he/she wishes.
    - No, only fanatics wishes this way. If what you are saying is true then why haven't we become a fascist/pan Arabist state?
    - Localism is growing among the Lebanese population, this showed in the October 17 protests. This is good news for everyone.
     
    Rafidi

    Rafidi

    Legendary Member
    @Lebmonage I am curious to know what you think of what Nabeel Qureshi says in this video.

    His talk starts at 12:37

    I watched over 30 minutes of his talk (had to find time to and also type a response because my schedule is tight) and I got irritated by his lame jokes, shallow thinking and also, his deceptive approach of presenting valid and convincing Muslim rebuttals to his claims, but only to act as if those rebuttals arent valid or convincing. He chose his path and that is his problem. He died at a young age and he would account to his Creator. If there is more in that (almost 2 hours) video you want us to discuss, and if you have watched the talk yourself, bring it out and lets discuss here.

    1. Based on the introduction, he is using exaggeration as literary tool quite much. When you wake up, you recite a supplication. Then after praying, there is a post prayer and all throughout the day he is just praying and praying, and as if he does nothing else. All they do is pray in his house. As commendable as that sounds, those prayers he mentioned aren't obligatory acts. What is obligatory when you wake up is to do ablution and to pray the morning prayer on your mat and that's it.

    2. The title of the talk itself is very silly: "seeking Allah and finding Jesus". It somewhat negates the existence of God. As far as we Arabic speakers are concerned, whether Muslims or Christians, we believe in Allah. I dont know how seeking Allah and finding Jesus are exclusively apart or contradictory. Why cant we have both like the Muslim does? He could have titled his talk "Seeking Allah and finding Christianity or Christianism". That would have sounded more honest than his sensational title.

    3. Over "6000 copies of NT manuscripts" but no two are identical, especially the contentious ones! He didnt mention that. Yet, he is giving an example of himself translating his mother's call on the spot to claim translation doesnt interfere with the transmission of text or doesnt compromise the authenticity of the text. The time factor matters on the transmission of the original message. You have all the thousands of copies, yet, there are still one Bible with 73 books and another with 66, and so many versions in circualtion. It still took 400 years to have a final compilation of a Bible as a we know of them today. It still took tons and tons of other books to be thrown away and tagged apocryphal. Back and forth addition and omision of books by early church fathers and over the span of four centuries to determine what should become the final form of what you believe in to be the God's word or the inspired word of God. Four centuries!!! But what you have is to you so holy and good that it must be the word of God upon which your salvation rests. How do you know? The manuscripts are "reliable" but we find interpolations and extrapolations and lack of identicality. We find contradictions. We find them inadequate: the so called gospels do not cover about most of Jesus's life. Only a few years of his mission are covered. This is an entire topic on it's own. And each point I have mentioned is another topic on it's own. You cant bring me up some manuscripts but end up shoving under the carpet the history involved. The devil lies in the details.

    4. He has much knowledge and counter beliefs, yet he CHOSE to be Christian. That is simply his choice. He already presented the Muslim perspective quite well. That was enough to make any Christian in the audience to feel in doubt and confused. I wont be surprised if some of his audience at that time have later on converted to Islam. Sadly, he passed away at a young age. He perhaps did not have a chance to repent before dying.

    5. I dont know how after he himself presented counter arguments and facts, anyone would believe in his right senses that a man is God. We are in the year 2020. If anyone believes a man is or was god, that is good for him but not for any right thinking person. The Bible said God is not man. The Bible said you cant see God. Even aside from verses like: the Father is greater than I. If you still choose to believe a man, any man is god, that is your choice. But is it the truth? You will find out some time. I dont think or believe it is.

    6. This guy is a drammatician. His friend handed himself he gospel of John and said "hey, read this". For someone who was a devout Muslim and versed in preaching, his expression is kind of funny. It is as if he was going to reinvent the wheel by reading the book of John. But like every Pentecostal scam artist, and mega pastors who are after the money, his preaching style is meant more to entertain in a scripted manner to an expecting audience than to make you think!

    7. How does John 1:1 makes Jesus god? Was it Jesus that is purported to have made that statement in John 1:1, whether in writing or in speech? It is an interpreted conclusion that the verse in question makes a human being a god. The creation of flesh through the Word of God is not exclusive to Jesus. Besides, the word predated the flesh. As far as we know, Jesus was a man in flesh. Even if we take that verse literally and say there is God and there another god called "word" literally (two gods), the verse still doesnt prove that the word is Jesus or became Jesus literally. Why? Read on. We cant say the word is Jesus. We say Jesus is the word of God figuratively. But the word is not Jesus. You may ask why again. The word denotes God's power and essence to create. When you believe Jesus died: did the word die? Was the "other God" deprived of His word and debilitated? God also said using His word, as found in Genesis, "let there be light". Is light a god and worthy of worship too? Well, in case you haven't heard or you dont know, there is a religion called Eckankar. They worship light and sound. Everyone is free to worship what he likes. God will be the judge. The fact is John 1:1 still doesnt make a case for the trinity doctrine, which was an adopted doctrine approved in a church council of bishops. How does John 1:1 make God "three in one", where there are three coequal gods, which are still not three but one? There is no correlation. The verse in the NT, which also states "there are three that bear witness" and going on to mention father, son and holy spirit, is interpolation. Clear examples of tailoring holy scripture to adjust to church adopted and approved doctrine. And do you wonder why the Quran reads thus "woe unto those who write the scripture and say this is from God". The Bible itself testifies against itself: in the Book of Jeremiah (8:8), the Bible testifies that "the lying pen of the scribes have handled the word of God falsely".

    8. In Exodus, which Nabil quoted, God said "Ana huwa". Or I am. Jesus was asked, purportedly, that how could you say that you have seen Abraham. And Jesus said "before Abraham, I am" or "before Abraham, I was". Some versions of the Bible state "before Abraham, I was". Jesus proceeding Abraham in creation, since even in Islam we believe the spirit, our spirits, were created before they joined our flesh in the womb, does not still mean we are gods or Jesus is god. This is aside the fact that there are Bible scholars who believe the "I am" verses or the verses where Jesus spoke in first person were later additions or recordings and therefore their authenticity is questionable.
     
    Last edited:
    T

    Thoma

    New Member
    You're welcome, though I'd appreciate some clarification on your part. Do you think the concept doesn't apply to the opposing argument, or does it not accurately explain the issue at hand? If it's the former, I would say on the contrary. Such arguments cannot remain in the abstract, in my opinion, because we're talking about the real life political and social experiences of the people we're discussing, especially concerning their relationship to power. If the latter, I might agree if presented with an alternative. I, for reasons, do not think engaging on the letter of Quranic and Biblical text or vague religious principles is a strong argument to make because they vary in practical application.
    But your approach seems to be afflicted with the same woes you claim it is free of and wrongly ascribe to mine (vagueness, remaining in the abstract, political correctness, etc). To the terrorists, to their victims, and to the rest of the world (minus yourself apparently, and the multiculturalists), it wasn't just 'some text like any other', nor 'a vague religious/ideological principle', upon, by and via which the terrorists became terrorists and acted out their terrorism. Why should we shy away from naming things as they are? Beware of this anomaly that can run very deep. It is really all about either naming things as they are, or foregoing our rational faculties altogether.

    Lo and behold. We cannot say something is (or can become) evil or unrightful because of .. essentialism. Essentialism is intrinsic to the very act of reckoning, identifying or classifying anything to begin with. Basically, the very process of starting to distinguish things apart, or of considering this or that to be such and such and so and not so, let alone making an argument, is itself a process, or an act, of essentialism, where essentialism is intrinsically or necessarily involved. You necessarily resort to it while performing the most basic of rational thoughts such as when you distinguish yourself, say a human, from a tree, or a dog, or when you distinguish yourself, a living organism, from an inanimate object. Thus faulting essentialism for some act you consider evil is on par with faulting logic for some logically invalid argument.

    The fault or the evil lies elsewhere. And it doesn't require you perverting your rational faculties to find it or to point it out. A valid rational moral and ethical framework, coupled with a good will, is all that's needed.
     
    T

    Thoma

    New Member
    Of course you are ready to assume the role. Your bigotry is clear. But no matter how much you Christian maggots and bigots try, the religion of Muhammad (s) will eventually prevail over the paganism you follow. When you are ready to he reasonable like you were reasonable enough to justofy a Christian saint for promoting violence, then we can talk.

    The condition of using force in the Quran was defined and that was in the first time it was permitted. If you want to play the role of a bigoted clown, be my guest, as far as the sources you will touch on are from the verses of the Quran. But for you to waste my time with what Abu Huraray or this or that person says in Sunni hadiths books, I wont. In the first place i don't believe in those hadiths, since the bulk of them are fabricated by the Umayyads hadith machines. I cant use some Jehovah's witness publications while talking to a catholic for example. So if you want us to discuss all the verses that have to do with war, you are welcome. And I will prove to you only using three verses, that all those verses surrounding war are not the norm for Muslims to act, but the exceptions.
    It was a rhetorical question. If truth means anything of value to you, you would already be assuming such roles yourself on your own. Indeed, as a supposedly genuine truth seeker and proclaimer, you ought easily, readily and constantly assume what you'd perceive to be the devil's advocate position against your own claims, putting them up for test, while resting on the fact that in so doing you'll always end up winning either way. For even with the inherent possibly, in this process, of losing your religion, your adopted way of life, your worldly rooted interests, your conceived notions that you harbor and comfortably live by, or even literally your own life, you will have gained the Truth in return, or at least (in your case esp, as a start) the realization and the peacefulness of being Truth's faithful disciple no matter how much you know of It. Is there anything more valuable than Truth? What good will it be for you to preserve and gain more of whatever appeals to you in exchange for Truth? If within yourself you see some benefit in this diabolically oriented exchange, and confidently so, then sadly I tell you you already have one foot in Hell with the other one following it.

    -------

    "Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached"

    For the first three centuries and many more after Muhammad’s death in 632 AD, Islam spread only with an army either lurking in the background or standing in the foreground. Military armies stormed out of Arabia and conquered cities along the Tigris and Euphrates, as well as cities towards the Mediterranean Sea, like Jerusalem in 638 AD. Then Islam continued its militarily spread even beyond those regions, reaching all the way to Spain and France. Do you claim that that happened in contradiction with Muhammad and the Quran?

    ---
     
    Nevermore

    Nevermore

    New Member
    But your approach seems to be afflicted with the same woes you claim it is free of and wrongly ascribe to mine (vagueness, remaining in the abstract, political correctness, etc).
    Firstly, I did not ascribe any characteristics to your argument. I merely asked questions of clarification.

    You, on the other hand, accuse me of being politically correct and of aligning with "multiculturalists", both baseless accusations and meaningless terms if I've heard any, yet I’m unsure as to how your “rational framework” allowed you to make those inferences from my posts. Your language ("minus yourself apparently") is dismissive and indicates to me that I am somehow a pariah when discussing a topic that has a direct affect on my life - go figure.

    In fact, your desire to engage Muslims exclusively as terrorists informed by the letter of their text represents a fear, possibly an inability, of further engaging on more substantive matters. This is not only a one-dimenensional form of argumentation, it is only the very basic baby step toward understanding the subjective real-life human experiences of minority Christian populations. It removes the conundrum presented by the imbalance of power between the two groups and takes them as morally diverging entities in a decontextualized Manichean universe. Fine if you choose to engage in that manner, I might agree with you. However, I choose to not see things through the ****ensian dichotomy of black and white, foregoing a more complex discussion of matters, as reality is more complex than simple black and white, as well as derailing the topic of this thread. Nevertheless, through your baseless accusations of me, you’ve twisted part of the discussion to make me sound like I’m defending terrorists and not defending the earthly concerns of our Christian brothers and sisters. I applaud you for this.

    To the terrorists, to their victims, and to the rest of the world (minus yourself apparently, and the multiculturalists), it wasn't just 'some text like any other', nor 'a vague religious/ideological principle', upon, by and via which the terrorists became terrorists and acted out their terrorism.
    Please remind me of the parts of the Qur’an the Romans used to persecute the early Christians. The dichotomy is not as simple as you seem to think.

    Why should we shy away from naming things as they are? Beware of this anomaly that can run very deep. It is really all about either naming things as they are, or foregoing our rational faculties altogether.
    We are naming things as they are, just in different ways. You continue circlejerking about doctrine and how that causes terrorism (I agree that terrorism can be informed by doctrine) and how I, a Christian, cannot possibly discuss Christian persecution outside of the realm of the metaphysical and/or without being steeped directly in belief itself, I will continue with my discussion of the real life effects of power, the actual cause of terrorism. I distinguish myself from others by using multiple sources of information to build my arguments. I especially like Leviathan by Hobbes and The Prince by Machiavelli. Although they weren't part of it, the Enlightenment was a beautiful thing, no?

    Lo and behold. We cannot say something is (or can become) evil or unrightful because of .. essentialism.
    This is a reductive statement, stripping my posts to their bare elements. Essentialism is only the first part of such an analysis. I'm not going to write screeds that noone will read. You have to keep the posts within a reasonable length. Take a look at the parts where I talked about Ottoman persecution of Christians, you might find something with which you agree.

    Essentialism is intrinsic to the very act of reckoning, identifying or classifying anything to begin with. Basically, the very process of starting to distinguish things apart, or of considering this or that to be such and such and so and not so, let alone making an argument, is itself a process, or an act, of essentialism, where essentialism is intrinsically or necessarily involved. You necessarily resort to it while performing the most basic of rational thoughts such as when you distinguish yourself, say a human, from a tree, or a dog, or when you distinguish yourself, a living organism, from an inanimate object. Thus faulting essentialism for some act you consider evil is on par with faulting logic for some logically invalid argument.
    Sure. However, once again, essentialism is only but a introduction to a much wider argument that I think you conveniently ignore. I'm following the logic of the post to which I replied, which decontextualizes Christian experiences, seeing them only as 'People of the Book' and not also as social beings with diverse traditions and backgrounds. Would you agree that this is the case or not? Do we, as social beings, not have experiences outside of the realm of Christianity? Do humans not exist in conjunction with, or even in spite of, their religious affiliations and not because of them?

    Furthermore, you focus on the point of essentialism so much that you exclude my points on the direct persecution of Christians by the Ottoman Empire (just as one example). Your engagement on this point, therefore, is purely semantic. Please re-read my posts in that regard, I think you will find that there is agreement between us.

    The fault or the evil lies elsewhere. And it doesn't require you perverting your rational faculties to find it or to point it out. A valid rational moral and ethical framework, coupled with a good will, is all that's needed.
    OK. I understand that that cannot exist outside of the realm of belief for you, but morality is subjective.
     
    Nevermore

    Nevermore

    New Member
    - In Lebanon they are not
    So, Christians are 50% of the population? Maybe endangered species is too harsh for Lebanon, I would rephrase it to say significantly dwindling.

    - No, in Nabatieh they are not relics and their troubled history is shared by other sects that lived among them (Palestinian and Israeli occupation).
    Troubled history – agreed. However, I think you’re making an assumption not based in the reality of the subjective experiences of those individual Christians and their families. They might say something different to you than they would to me which might confirm each of our existing beliefs. From my part, I would never claim to fully represent or understand the beliefs and views of southern Shia, for example, because I know that I do not have access to the group the way you might have. I think those Christians tell me something different than they might tell you, tbh. And we can’t deny that they had a lot of trouble after the Israeli withdrawal in 2000 by being labeled as collaborators just for their association with their religion and village - a sentiment that still exists among some today.

    - Pan Arabism is dead, it died long time ago. Everyone chooses to identify as he/she wishes.
    Pan-Arabism is a code word. It’s very much alive, it’s just transformed. As long as there’s a dominant religious group and a hegemony-hungry regional power, the sentiment will always exist.

    - No, only fanatics wishes this way. If what you are saying is true then why haven't we become a fascist/pan Arabist state?
    I think you might’ve misunderstood this point. I don’t think a post-sectarian view of Lebanon is a healthy way to engage our people. It’s important to see each group relative to their subjective experiences, not as how they should be acting given a secular utopia. I believe that is another fault of the sawra types that only exist in their narrow Beirut bubble.

    - Localism is growing among the Lebanese population, this showed in the October 17 protests. This is good news for everyone.
    Sure, but I’ve read enough from Nassim Taleb and others to I know that this concept of localism is not as novel as he might think it is. It makes for good twitter chatter, but it’s yet to be seen how it plays out in practical application when you have homogenous regions that result in sectarian cantons, among other issues. Localism isn’t a panacea for our broader reckoning with our sectarian and economic problems.
     
    Top