100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Taking Religious Verses Out Of Context? | |
|---|---|
|
Edited by
Lukinfolov
on
Sat 06/13/15 02:02 AM
|
|
I am confused about Shia, Sunni, Sharia, and Shi'ite.... Can someone shed some light on this...in proper context... Islam has 2 main sects : Sunni islam which represents the major sect ( it is usually the sect of the jihadi radical organizations ), and Shia sect which represents the minor one ( islam consists of almost 85 % sunni and 15 % shia ) , these tow sects have been in a historical conflict for almost 1400 years , this conflict turned in many cases to be the reason of bloody sectarian wars and massacres where these tow sects are in contact (like Iraq , Pakistan ) Shi'ite is the follower of Shia sect Sharia , or Shariaa law is the Islamic law based on quraan (islamic holy book ) and what mohammad said during his life ( hadiths ) Knew i could count on you  ..long time no see.
From what ive been reading up on the matter...sunni seem to be more literal and deliberate in interpreting the contents of the quran, whereas shia is more contextual and adaptive... actually both sects agree on the same interpreting of the major content of quraan (there are some exceptions though ) , while they disagree on some historical events about who had the right to lead Muslims after Mohammad died , Shia wanted (Ali) Mohammad's cousin to lead Muslims as they believed the leader of Muslims should be one of Mohammad's relatives while Sunna wanted ( Abu Bakr ) one of Mohammads companions to be the leader ... Abu Bakr took the leadership eventually and the conflict have risen since then . Well yes, historically speaking... But a figurehead can only be as good as the ideas he present, and the acceptability of his ideas. Im pretty sure there is something/s in muslim doctrine that caused the divide and the continuing escalation of the conflict...especially since it encompasses not only religious rites and traditions but also the politico-legal sentiment... It had nothing to do with any doctrine. It was a struggle for power...who would take control of the Khalifat and succeed Mohammad to lead the then Islam community. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I am confused about Shia, Sunni, Sharia, and Shi'ite.... Can someone shed some light on this...in proper context... Islam has 2 main sects : Sunni islam which represents the major sect ( it is usually the sect of the jihadi radical organizations ), and Shia sect which represents the minor one ( islam consists of almost 85 % sunni and 15 % shia ) , these tow sects have been in a historical conflict for almost 1400 years , this conflict turned in many cases to be the reason of bloody sectarian wars and massacres where these tow sects are in contact (like Iraq , Pakistan ) Shi'ite is the follower of Shia sect Sharia , or Shariaa law is the Islamic law based on quraan (islamic holy book ) and what mohammad said during his life ( hadiths ) Knew i could count on you ..long time no see.
From what ive been reading up on the matter...sunni seem to be more literal and deliberate in interpreting the contents of the quran, whereas shia is more contextual and adaptive... actually both sects agree on the same interpreting of the major content of quraan (there are some exceptions though ) , while they disagree on some historical events about who had the right to lead Muslims after Mohammad died , Shia wanted (Ali) Mohammad's cousin to lead Muslims as they believed the leader of Muslims should be one of Mohammad's relatives while Sunna wanted ( Abu Bakr ) one of Mohammads companions to be the leader ... Abu Bakr took the leadership eventually and the conflict have risen since then . Well yes, historically speaking... But a figurehead can only be as good as the ideas he present, and the acceptability of his ideas. Im pretty sure there is something/s in muslim doctrine that caused the divide and the continuing escalation of the conflict...especially since it encompasses not only religious rites and traditions but also the politico-legal sentiment... It had nothing to do with any doctrine. It was a struggle for power...who would take control of the Khalifat and succeed Mohammad to lead the then Islam community. exactly , yet both parties used their interpreting of some religious texts ( either from Quraan or from hadiths ) to support their points of view |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
My point exactly...i guess the word "doctrine" was inappropriate.
But i was referring to the religious texts they used...not just in justifying who was to succeed mohammed, but like you said, most of the jihadi radical orgs are sunni...is this simply because they comprise the majority of the muslim population or rather because of their interpretation of the text? As opposed to the shia sect... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
My point exactly...i guess the word "doctrine" was inappropriate. But i was referring to the religious texts they used...not just in justifying who was to succeed mohammed, but like you said, most of the jihadi radical orgs are sunni...is this simply because they comprise the majority of the muslim population or rather because of their interpretation of the text? As opposed to the shia sect... Shiaa Muslims , as a minority , have been in a defensive position since the very beginning , that might oriented their interest to defend their presence in the first place knowing that they might not be able to expand their ideology by force as they are surrounded by stronger opponents , while Sunni muslims had the power and the resources needed to carry on the "islamization" process based on "jihad" to defend islam and expand its territories , that's why most of ( if not all ) radical jihadi organizations follow sunni islam and try to force this ideology on others . |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Pansytilly
on
Sat 06/13/15 02:54 AM
|
|
My point exactly...i guess the word "doctrine" was inappropriate. But i was referring to the religious texts they used...not just in justifying who was to succeed mohammed, but like you said, most of the jihadi radical orgs are sunni...is this simply because they comprise the majority of the muslim population or rather because of their interpretation of the text? As opposed to the shia sect... Shiaa Muslims , as a minority , have been in a defensive position since the very beginning , that might oriented their interest to defend their presence in the first place knowing that they might not be able to expand their ideology by force as they are surrounded by stronger opponents , while Sunni muslims had the power and the resources needed to carry on the "islamization" process based on "jihad" to defend islam and expand its territories , that's why most of ( if not all ) radical jihadi organizations follow sunni islam and try to force this ideology on others . Ideology or succession? I just want to clarify some things, because im using this link as a reference. It was the simplest and most concise reference i could find on the differences... http://www.islamawareness.net/Deviant/Shia/sunni_vs_shia.html |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
People often like to cite Jesus saying, "Let he without sin cast the first stone," to excuse bad behavior, but they ignore the part where He told the woman, "Go forth and sin no more."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
People often like to cite Jesus saying, "Let he without sin cast the first stone," to excuse bad behavior, but they ignore the part where He told the woman, "Go forth and sin no more." That is probably because "sin" has become subjective... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
People often like to cite Jesus saying, "Let he without sin cast the first stone," to excuse bad behavior, but they ignore the part where He told the woman, "Go forth and sin no more." That is probably because "sin" has become subjective... It could also be that sin has become subjective because we selectively apply religious teachings. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
People often like to cite Jesus saying, "Let he without sin cast the first stone," to excuse bad behavior, but they ignore the part where He told the woman, "Go forth and sin no more." That is probably because "sin" has become subjective... It could also be that sin has become subjective because we selectively apply religious teachings. that is my point. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
My point exactly...i guess the word "doctrine" was inappropriate. But i was referring to the religious texts they used...not just in justifying who was to succeed mohammed, but like you said, most of the jihadi radical orgs are sunni...is this simply because they comprise the majority of the muslim population or rather because of their interpretation of the text? As opposed to the shia sect... Shiaa Muslims , as a minority , have been in a defensive position since the very beginning , that might oriented their interest to defend their presence in the first place knowing that they might not be able to expand their ideology by force as they are surrounded by stronger opponents , while Sunni muslims had the power and the resources needed to carry on the "islamization" process based on "jihad" to defend islam and expand its territories , that's why most of ( if not all ) radical jihadi organizations follow sunni islam and try to force this ideology on others . Ideology or succession? the former results in the latter |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ideology or succession? the former results in the latter Exactly....and force is the culprit... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
People often like to cite Jesus saying, "Let he without sin cast the first stone," to excuse bad behavior, but they ignore the part where He told the woman, "Go forth and sin no more." That is probably because "sin" has become subjective... It could also be that sin has become subjective because we selectively apply religious teachings. seems sin has always been subjective... it's a sin to kill, but not when it's in the name of a god...how many people have died in the name of a god? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
People often like to cite Jesus saying, "Let he without sin cast the first stone," to excuse bad behavior, but they ignore the part where He told the woman, "Go forth and sin no more." That is probably because "sin" has become subjective... It could also be that sin has become subjective because we selectively apply religious teachings. seems sin has always been subjective... it's a sin to kill, but not when it's in the name of a god...how many people have died in the name of a god? There ain't enough zeros on tha calculator to count. a few gazillion I'll bet. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
People often like to cite Jesus saying, "Let he without sin cast the first stone," to excuse bad behavior, but they ignore the part where He told the woman, "Go forth and sin no more." That is probably because "sin" has become subjective... It could also be that sin has become subjective because we selectively apply religious teachings. seems sin has always been subjective... it's a sin to kill, but not when it's in the name of a god...how many people have died in the name of a god? There are two different Hebrew words (ratsakh, mut) and two Greek words (phoneuo, apokteino) for “murder” and “killing.” One means “to put to death,” and the other means “to murder.” The latter one is the one prohibited by the Ten Commandments, not the former Read more: http://www.gotquestions.org/you-shall-not-murder.html#ixzz3czRYOZRZ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
People often like to cite Jesus saying, "Let he without sin cast the first stone," to excuse bad behavior, but they ignore the part where He told the woman, "Go forth and sin no more." That is probably because "sin" has become subjective... It could also be that sin has become subjective because we selectively apply religious teachings. seems sin has always been subjective... it's a sin to kill, but not when it's in the name of a god...how many people have died in the name of a god? "Sin" isn't subject necassarily. Just "sin" is being disobediant to an authority, in this case God. Sin - n. noun 1. A transgression of a religious or moral law, especially when deliberate. 2. Deliberate disobedience to the known will of God. 3. A condition of estrangement from God resulting from such disobedience. And for your example, God never said it was a sin to "kill", he has told us not to "murder". Murder is taking someone's life unlawfully. God is law, so any instruction from God wouldn't be "murder" as again he is that authority in question to give life or take it away. And in context "unlawfully" would be in accordance to God's law. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All I can say is religion is a matter of faith,,, which can vary person to person,,, people mood it as per their convinience
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Dodo_David
on
Sun 06/14/15 05:42 PM
|
|
it's a sin to kill, but not when it's in the name of a god... Uh, just what religious text says that it is always a sin to kill? That oft-misquoted verse in Exodus says, "You shall not murder."* Not every killing of a person is a murder. [*Side Note: It is rather unfortunate that the KJV mistranslates Exodus 20:13. Thankfully, other English versions of the Bible don't contain that particular mistranslation.] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
it's a sin to kill, but not when it's in the name of a god... Uh, just what religious text says that it is always a sin to kill? That oft-misquoted verse in Exodus says, "You shall not murder."* Not every killing of a person is a murder. [*Side Note: It is rather unfortunate that the KJV mistranslates Exodus 20:13. Thankfully, other English versions of the Bible don't contain that particular mistranslation.] uhhh ten commandments... "thou shalt not kill?" i'm atheist and i know more about the bible than you religious people??? get real, david... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
it's a sin to kill, but not when it's in the name of a god... Uh, just what religious text says that it is always a sin to kill? That oft-misquoted verse in Exodus says, "You shall not murder."* Not every killing of a person is a murder. [*Side Note: It is rather unfortunate that the KJV mistranslates Exodus 20:13. Thankfully, other English versions of the Bible don't contain that particular mistranslation.] uhhh ten commandments... "thou shalt not kill?" i'm atheist and i know more about the bible than you religious people??? get real, david... If you did know the Bible so well, then you'd know that what I said is correct. The King James Version of Exodus 20:13 is a faulty translation of the original Hebrew. The correct translation of Exodus 20:13 is "You shall not murder", not "You shall not kill." Thankfully, modern English versions of the Bible use the correct translation. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
it's a sin to kill, but not when it's in the name of a god... Uh, just what religious text says that it is always a sin to kill? That oft-misquoted verse in Exodus says, "You shall not murder."* Not every killing of a person is a murder. [*Side Note: It is rather unfortunate that the KJV mistranslates Exodus 20:13. Thankfully, other English versions of the Bible don't contain that particular mistranslation.] uhhh ten commandments... "thou shalt not kill?" i'm atheist and i know more about the bible than you religious people??? get real, david... If you did know the Bible so well, then you'd know that what I said is correct. The King James Version of Exodus 20:13 is a faulty translation of the original Hebrew. The correct translation of Exodus 20:13 is "You shall not murder", not "You shall not kill." Thankfully, modern English versions of the Bible use the correct translation. whatever, your just making crap up now... |
|
|
|
|
