shia (followers, prophet, God, muslims, islam)

[Popeyesays]

Originally Posted by K.Venugopal

Translation or interpretation, the key phrase in the Shahada apart from the two phrases (in the Sunni Shahada) 'Allah is the only god' and 'Mohammad is His messenger' is, 'I bear witness'. The Muslim or Muslim-to-be makes the claim to have witnessed the truth of the other two phrases. In reality Muslims are not witness to any objective facts about Allah and his messenger but are only expressing their own belief or faith that Allah is the only god and Mohammad is His messenger. Such being the reality, is the word ‘witness’ in translation (or interpretation) an incorrect translation (or interpretation)? If the translation is correct, haven’t Muslims (unknowingly, of course) been bearing false witness all the while?

One "bears" witness to what one knows.

Knowledge of spiritual things is different from seeing what happened before one's eyes. Is itnot?

Regards,
Scott

[K.Venugopal]

Originally Posted by Popeyesays

One "bears" witness to what one knows.

One either knows or does not know. When one is not sure, when one supposes, then belief and faith come in. Subsequently on the strength of faith one converts one's uncertainty into certainty. But this certainty is a subjective certainty. In witnessing one cannot be subjective. One has to be objective. The word 'witness' is used over 200 times in the Quran. Nowhere is the witness permitted the luxury of being subjective. Allah says He is the best witness to the fact that Mohammad is His messenger. Allah knows. He does not, surely, bear witness on faith. Moreover, the Shariat insists on 4 witnesses in rape cases - all having witnessed the actual penetration. If the 4th witness only made an obvious guess, what with all the ‘togetherness’ he witnessed, without actually seeing the penetration, he is no witness and thus, the quorum of witness not achieved, the rapist goes scot-free. Everywhere else in Islamic theology, it appears, witness is required to give an objective testimony. Why the exception in the Shahada?

[AbuQuteiba]

Originally Posted by K.Venugopal

One either knows or does not know. When one is not sure, when one supposes, then belief and faith come in. Subsequently on the strength of faith one converts one's uncertainty into certainty. But this certainty is a subjective certainty. In witnessing one cannot be subjective. One has to be objective. The word 'witness' is used over 200 times in the Quran. Nowhere is the witness permitted the luxury of being subjective. Allah says He is the best witness to the fact that Mohammad is His messenger. Allah knows. He does not, surely, bear witness on faith. Moreover, the Shariat insists on 4 witnesses in rape cases - all having witnessed the actual penetration. If the 4th witness only made an obvious guess, what with all the ‘togetherness’ he witnessed, without actually seeing the penetration, he is no witness and thus, the quorum of witness not achieved, the rapist goes scot-free. Everywhere else in Islamic theology, it appears, witness is required to give an objective testimony. Why the exception in the Shahada?

Nice try. This isn't the place.

[yirme]

Originally Posted by yousaf

brother are you a scholar ? borther the reason why they(shia) scholars are known as kaafir is because many of thier major beliefs contradict the teaches of the prophet

i do not claim to be a scholar, their teachings differ from the teachings of the prophets according to sunni scholars, from a sunni perspective. the shia scholars can say the same thing about the sunni scholars. i am not saying either side is right. but when viewed from a biased position, things become unclear.

peace

[zamilabbas]

they are partly muslim a they have many differeces from a pure muslim and a shia