firedragon
Veteran Member
People who purposely disobey God to obey their own chosen leaders are polytheists.
Are you sure you are not doing it?
As a Muslim, this is shirk. True. But are we doing it? Have you questioned?
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
People who purposely disobey God to obey their own chosen leaders are polytheists.
See brother, while you accuse others of following others, other than God, you are quoting others, other than God.
Dont you see that you stand on your own accused stand?
It is not necessary that what you believe is the only truth. Is there any evidence to support your belief?Who am I quoting? All the information I get is from Baha’u’llah Who is a Manifestation God or His appointed Successors so i believe it comes from God.
It is not necessary that what you believe is the only truth. Is there any evidence to support your belief?
All religions are true, although you do not agree to what the believers of those religions believe, and further, you believe that the final truth is only with your religion. I could never parse this contradiction. But then, Bahaollah is not the first or the last with this scheme of things. That happens with all religions that forked out of Judaism. After Baqaollah, there was Mirza Ghulam Ahmad of the Ahmadiyyas.
Who am I quoting? All the information I get is from Baha’u’llah Who is a Manifestation God or His appointed Successors so i believe it comes from God.
You quoted Effendi. Brother, is he also God?
Conferred infallibility was passed on from Baha’u’llah to Abdul-Baha in His Will and from Abdul-Baha to Shoghi Effendi’s in His will. The Guardian is referring to Shoghi Effendi’s.
I could argue that you are doing the same thing you accuse others of.
Its just an argument. Anyone can argue a lot of things.
Peace.
I think that following the Prophets when they deviate from the path of God could fairly be considered a form of shirk by a reasonable person.
So a Prophet doesn’t like the equal testimony of women... put the idea in the bin.
So a Prophet doesn’t like the idea of monogamous gay folk... put the idea in the bin.
Are you sure you are not doing it?
As a Muslim, this is shirk. True. But are we doing it? Have you questioned?
So you’re reason for not allowing 1 woman to testify on a contract is that they may get maternity leave?Quran does not say that. It does not say testimony is not equal, it says to record a contract, bring two men or two women and a men as witnesses.
You have understood that as demeaning to women because you first approached it that way. But the verse doesnt say that. You are misquoting the verse on purpose.
The verse does not speak about inequality in testimony. Thats misquoting a book. To record a contract, you need two women, maybe because in the future, when calling for witnesses, its better to have two women as witnesses because one may nnot be able to make it. It is only the woman who gets pregnant. It is only the woman who gets menstruation. If you analyse HR data, women take more leave than men. Because of very valid reasons and thats fact.
That does not mean they are unequal in testimony.
I could only show verses that are interpreted as being opposed to the monogamous practice of gay relationships, but if that does not describe you i’m not really interested in trying to convince you of the other interpretation.Again, you are making the mistake of speaking from top of mind awareness. Its too shallow.
Can you show a verse in the Quran that discriminates against "monogamous gay folk"?
So you’re reason for not allowing 1 woman to testify on a contract is that they may get maternity leave?
Can’t they just agree to witness via telephone or email when on maternity leave?
I could only show verses that are interpreted as being opposed to the monogamous practice of gay relationships, but if that does not describe you i’m not really interested in trying to convince you of the other interpretation.
I’m not talking about the original signature when two witnesses are required, I’m talking about if she has to testify to something she already signed then later goes on maternity leave. Obviously two witnesses aren’t required because in the initial signing 1 may be on leave.No. You can’t be a witness over the phone. Maybe because you can’t put signatures over the phone.
I’m not talking about the original signature when two witnesses are required, I’m talking about if she has to testify to something she already signed then later goes on maternity leave. Obviously two witnesses aren’t required because in the initial signing 1 may be on leave.