Sunni's follow Islam as defined by the Qur'an more than the Shia.

[firedragon]

I just gave it to you.

No. But of course, I won't ask again. You have not answered a single question so far in this thread. So it cannot be expected.

 

[CG Didymus]

Facts and Truth are relative, some take a while to embrace.

Regards Tony

And some things believed to be "truth" and "facts" by a religion stay only "true" for them. Like Link said, this might not be the thread to do it in, but I'd be interested in hearing what Sunni's and Shia's say about when and who is going to return. And compare that to what Baha'is say has happened.

 

[Link]

Sunnis and Shias use to get married like crazy together in Iraq, Pakistan and elsewhere. It's recent Wahabi funded British made Islam and western ploys in the middle-east and funding extremists that has caused all this rift. They supported Sadam for years and wanted a gulf war all to create hate between even Shia Iraqis and Shia Iranians.

Sufis use to be all twelvers, but now they shy away from testifying to the unique position they use to give to the 12 Imams (a) with respect to Mohammad's (s) station as a magnet and pole of his time. Ibn Arabi talks about the Mahdi (a) as the son of Hassan Al-askari (a).

This hate is new and artificial. We use to live side by side for centuries. Even when Abbassids and ummayads were killing Shiites, it was not the people (Sunnis) who wanted that to happen. They were just too cowardly or apathetic to change the situation as they are today.

 

[Link]

ISIS we can thank Obama for it.

 

[stevecanuck]

No. But of course, I won't ask again. You have not answered a single question so far in this thread. So it cannot be expected.

I gave you your own direct quote in answer. If you want to pretend I didn't, knock yourself out.

 

[firedragon]

I gave you your own direct quote in answer. If you want to pretend I didn't, knock yourself out.

I think you should go through your own thread and see how many questions you have avoided so far.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

And some things believed to be "truth" and "facts" by a religion stay only "true" for them. Like Link said, this might not be the thread to do it in, but I'd be interested in hearing what Sunni's and Shia's say about when and who is going to return. And compare that to what Baha'is say has happened.

I see It is all irrelevant, as it did happen via the Bab and Baha'u'llah via the Shia branch of Islam.

That is the same reason it is hard to go to a Christian Sunday service, as they always finish the service with the eating of bread and drinking of wine , doing that in remembrance, but then envoking God, but still waiting for the promise to be fulfilled, yet it was in 1844.

I am not beating around the bush wasting time hinting this might be the case anymore, I am black and white person and after 40 years of telling people about this, it is time to talk only of the white, as the promise has been fulfilled.

How and when this will be embraced? Will it be embraced, yes no doubt at all, will there be much suffering in the process, yes no doubt at all as the world gives birth to a new world order.

So CG, I see we have discussed this as much as we can and the future also envolves your choices. I will stay with my choice and try to be a better person, and as to what you choose and do, I wish for you all the best in life and faith.

Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Sunnis and Shias use to get married like crazy together in Iraq, Pakistan and elsewhere. It's recent Wahabi funded British made Islam and western ploys in the middle-east and funding extremists that has caused all this rift. They supported Sadam for years and wanted a gulf war all to create hate between even Shia Iraqis and Shia Iranians.

Sufis use to be all twelvers, but now they shy away from testifying to the unique position they use to give to the 12 Imams (a) with respect to Mohammad's (s) station as a magnet and pole of his time. Ibn Arabi talks about the Mahdi (a) as the son of Hassan Al-askari (a).

This hate is new and artificial. We use to live side by side for centuries. Even when Abbassids and ummayads were killing Shiites, it was not the people (Sunnis) who wanted that to happen. They were just too cowardly or apathetic to change the situation as they are today.

There is another mix also now, Muslim of both Shia and Sunni backgrounds have become Bahai and are marrying across all people of all Faiths.

The only reason there is conflict between faiths is naught but built up predudices that are not anything to do with the teachings of Muhammad.

There is no excuse not to have unity across all faiths, as there is no compulsion in religion.

I will pull out of this OP as well, as the person that started it has not asked for any response, so my replies are my own shortcomings.

All the best Link, Regards Tony.

 

[Augustus]

Right. I'll look at them.

Do you still think you are relying on actual history rather than theology?

If so, why do you put such faith in the sirah and hadith literature?

 

[England my lionheart]

Just my opinion after reading the Qur'an for 20 years and observing actions and rituals practiced by various sects of Islam.

First, Mohamed would recoil in horror at the phrase "sects of Islam". He thought he was creating a monolith, but after he died men do what men do and started messing with it. IMO, if Mohamed didn't do it or advocate for it, then it isn't part of Islam. The Shia added things like line-of-succession rules and Ashara, and off they went to create an offshoot.

NOTE: Not being a Muslim, I believe the Qur'an was created solely by Mohamed. No god(s) were involved.

No argument really:

My ummah will split into seventy-three sects, all of whom will be in Hell except one group.” They said: Who are they, O Messenger of Allaah? He said: “(Those who follow) that which I and my companions follow.” This is mentioned in the hadeeth of ‘Abd-Allaah ibn ‘Amr which was recorded and classed as hasan by al-Tirmidhi (2641). It was also classed as hasan by al-‘Iraaqi in Ahkaam al-Qur’aan (3/432), al-‘Iraaqi in Takhreej al-Ihya’ (3/284) and al-Albaani in Saheeh al-Tirmidhi.

Im not a follower of Islam either but have pondered the question of a hereditary prophet,like the Quran it all’s seems pretty human to me.

 

[stevecanuck]

Do you still think you are relying on actual history rather than theology?

If so, why do you put such faith in the sirah and hadith literature?

As I said before, this entire discussion about the veracity of the history of early Islam is moot. Muslims. Today's Sunni's believe the Qur'an and the hadiths, and that's what we have to deal with.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

No argument really:

My ummah will split into seventy-three sects, all of whom will be in Hell except one group.” They said: Who are they, O Messenger of Allaah? He said: “(Those who follow) that which I and my companions follow.” This is mentioned in the hadeeth of ‘Abd-Allaah ibn ‘Amr which was recorded and classed as hasan by al-Tirmidhi (2641). It was also classed as hasan by al-‘Iraaqi in Ahkaam al-Qur’aan (3/432), al-‘Iraaqi in Takhreej al-Ihya’ (3/284) and al-Albaani in Saheeh al-Tirmidhi.

Im not a follower of Islam either but have pondered the question of a hereditary prophet,like the Quran it all’s seems pretty human to me.

That is a very interesting Hadith. That in the end it will be one split that remains with the Truth.

As numbers are also very important, I looked at Surah 72 to see what it offers and to me it confirms this Hadith, quite amazingly at the end of the Surahin verse 25 to 28 it says

"Say, “I do not know if what you are promised is near or my Lord has set a distant time for it."
26 ˹He is the˺ Knower of the unseen, disclosing none of it to anyone,
27except messengers of His choice. Then He appoints angel-guards before and behind them
28 to ensure that the messengers fully deliver the messages of their Lord—though He ˹already˺ knows all about them, and keeps account of everything.”

So 72 sects is to me the fulfilment of Islam, and the time to herald a new Day of God.

To me that says the 73 branch will be founded by a new Messenger.

Of course, that is my take, at this time.

Regards Tony

 

[Augustus]

As I said before, this entire discussion about the veracity of the history of early Islam is moot. Muslims. Today's Sunni's believe the Qur'an and the hadiths, and that's what we have to deal with.

Unless your thread is a tautological statement that Sunnis more accurately follow Sunni theology that Shia do, it is not 'moot' but fundamental to the issue.

Your claim was: Sunnis follow Islam as defined by the Qur'an more than the Shia (not simply Sunnis follow Islam as defined by the Sunnis more than the Shia) .

Yet you have demonstrated that your understanding of the Quran and how it should be interpreted is shaped by the hadith and sirah literature (from the Sunni tradition) that was codified centuries after Muhammad. Not only that, unless you read the Quran in Arabic, your translation is influenced by the hadith and sirah literature too.

You are making a sectarian argument while claiming it is based on an unbiased reading of the Quran and actual history, rather than what you are actually doing which is reading the Quran through a Sunni lens and taking Sunni theology as neutral history.

To illustrate you can start with Wiki:

One common mistake is to assume that Sunni Islam represents a normative Islam that emerged during the period after Muhammad's death, and that Sufism and Shi'ism developed out of Sunni Islam.[19] This perception is partly due to the reliance on highly ideological sources that have been accepted as reliable historical works, and also because the vast majority of the population is Sunni. Both Sunnism and Shiaism are the end products of several centuries of competition between ideologies. Both sects used each other to further cement their own identities and doctrines.[20]

Or scholarly sources:

The name “Sunni” derives from a technical term that we have already encountered: “Sunna.” When the term “Sunna” appears in Islamic legal theory, it is used in a more restrictive sense to refer to the normative life of Muhammad that was constructed and imagined as authoritative by later generations...

The name “Sunni” abbreviates a phrase that better clarifies the Sunni movement’s ideological parameters: “ahl al-sunna waʾl-jamaʿa” (the People of the Tradition [of Muhammad] and the Community). As with Shiʿism, however, it is imperative that we not regard this tradition as emerging fully formed at the time of Muhammad. On the contrary, it took time to develop, often in relationship to a series of legal and theological disputes, certain answers to which would emerge as “orthodox.” Although many of these answers would at a later date be taken to have existed at the time of Muhammad, there is no clear evidence that they did.

Sunni Islam is defined not by its allegiance to a particular individual (e.g., Ali and the ahl al-bayt) or institution (e.g., the Imamate), as Shiʿism is, but by following one of the four authentic schools of law that are envis- aged as representing the true elaboration of Muhammad’s Sunna. These schools took generations to develop and were done so largely by means of a group of legal scholars (ulama; sing., alim), whose main concern was to determine what obedience to God should mean in a daily context.3 The product of their collective efforts is the sharia, literally the “path” or “way” that Muslims should follow. Muslim Identities: An Introduction to Islam - M White (Columbia University Press)

or:

In recent years, scholars have increasingly used the label “proto-Sunni” to denote a
late Umayyad — early Abbasid period movement which played a pivotal role in the
formation of Sunni Islam... the category proto-Sunni usefully underlines the fact that, like other
religious traditions,5 Sunni Islam did not appear in history fully formed; but that it
emerged through a complex historical process, a process which yielded widespread
Sunni self-awareness no earlier than the late 9th century.6 As such, the designation
proto-Sunni underscores the provisional nature of the many competing versions of Islam
in this period, and against that background, the crucial role of those who prepared the
way for an eventual Sunni consensus... While much of the credit for the
“Sunni synthesis” must go to jurists and theologians of the 10th through the 13th centuries,
such as al-Ash‘arı¯ (d. 936) and al-Ghazza¯lı¯ (d. 1111), who absorbed many of the
cross-currents of early Islam into grand legal and theological schemes, it is important to
remember that those very schemes would have proven impossible without the
foundations laid by the early proto-Sunnis.83 Laying these foundations or plausibility
structures is their greatest achievement; an achievement which was the result of the
proto-Sunnis’ uniquely satisfying solutions to the historical pressures they faced on one
hand, and the increasing prestige they enjoyed on the other.

The Roots and Achievements of the Early Proto-Sunni Movement: A Profile and Interpretation - Matthew J. Kuiper
Error - Cookies Turned Off

Or:

The stage was set for a confrontation between the caliph and the ulama. The link between Iraq and the ashãb sunna may be explained by the fact that the Mihna was initiated and enforced primarily upon the ulama of Iraq.46 The caliph wanted the ulama to submit to his will and acknowledge him, as caliph, as the religious authority to guide all believers. One of the ulama who directly opposed the caliph was Ahmad b. Hanbal who, by any standard, was pivotal in the development of Sunnism.47 Paradoxically, the Mihna resulted in the opposite of what the caliph intended: it united the opposition as the ulama rallied around the figure of Ibn Hanbal, who, together with other ashãb sunna , said that a caliph does not define Islam. They rejected the caliph's carefully crafted rational arguments, while paying lip service to al-Ma'mūn's demands.48 The ashãb sunna highlighted their accounts about the correct behavior of a Muslim rather than a caliph's opinion about what a Muslim should believe. Thus the first and most important tenet of Sunnism was established in opposition to the caliph's will and a momentous step was taken in the crystallization of Sunnism as we know it.

The Appellation "Ṣāḥib Sunna" in Classical Islam: How Sunnism Came To Be - John A. Nawasit

 

[CG Didymus]

That is the same reason it is hard to go to a Christian Sunday service, as they always finish the service with the eating of bread and drinking of wine , doing that in remembrance, but then envoking God, but still waiting for the promise to be fulfilled, yet it was in 1844.

Well now that this thread is fading maybe now we can derail it. So... Christians and things that were to be fulfilled before the return of Christ is one thing, but what were the things expected in Islam? Anything like the things in Revelation? And, I suppose, whatever the Sunni's believe was going to happen is wrong. But still, what did they expect and why is it wrong?

 

[stevecanuck]

......

Yet you have demonstrated that your understanding of the Quran and how it should be interpreted is shaped by the hadith and sirah literature (from the Sunni tradition) that was codified centuries after Muhammad.

Not at all. I treat the Qur'an as a stand-alone tome. I just read the words in it, and take it from there.

Not only that, unless you read the Quran in Arabic, your translation is influenced by the hadith and sirah literature too.

Nope. Words are words. "Allah Ado al kafarina" means "Allah is the enemy of unbelievers" regardless of what anything else says.

 

[stevecanuck]

Well now that this thread is fading maybe now we can derail it. So... Christians and things that were to be fulfilled before the return of Christ is one thing, but what were the things expected in Islam? Anything like the things in Revelation? And, I suppose, whatever the Sunni's believe was going to happen is wrong. But still, what did they expect and why is it wrong?

Perhaps you could start your own thread. Thanks.

 

[Augustus]

Not at all. I treat the Qur'an as a stand-alone tome. I just read the words in it, and take it from there.

Demonstrably you do not do that. You have noted as such in this thread on multiple occasions.

You seem not to understand this though, despite more than one person trying to open your eyes as to why you are not doing it.

Can't say I get your emotional investment in trying your best to not understand something that you claim to be interested in.

Nope. Words are words. "Allah Ado al kafarina" means "Allah is the enemy of unbelievers" regardless of what anything else says.

Come on, you claim to have studied this for 2 decades, you could have at least bothered to understand the basics of Quranic translation (or the basics of translation of any text for that matter).

You seriously think the translators are just objectively changing one word for its clearly identifiable English translation? Have you not seen the differences between the dozens of translations?

Which translation do you use btw and why is that the 'most accurate'?

 

[stevecanuck]

Demonstrably you do not do that. You have noted as such in this thread on multiple occasions.

You seem not to understand this though, despite more than one person trying to open your eyes as to why you are not doing it.

Can't say I get your emotional investment in trying your best to not understand something that you claim to be interested in.



Come on, you claim to have studied this for 2 decades, you could have at least bothered to understand the basics of Quranic translation (or the basics of translation of any text for that matter).

You seriously think the translators are just objectively changing one word for its clearly identifiable English translation? Have you not seen the differences between the dozens of translations?

Which translation do you use btw and why is that the 'most accurate'?

That was entirely gratuitous. Why didn't you save yourself a lot of keystrokes and just say, "IS NOT"!!

As far as the translation of "allah Ado al kafareena", argue with these guys, not me.

The Quranic Arabic Corpus - Translation

Sahih International: Whoever is an enemy to Allah and His angels and His messengers and Gabriel and Michael - then indeed, Allah is an enemy to the disbelievers.

Pickthall: Who is an enemy to Allah, and His angels and His messengers, and Gabriel and Michael! Then, lo! Allah (Himself) is an enemy to the disbelievers.

Yusuf Ali: Whoever is an enemy to Allah and His angels and messengers, to Gabriel and Michael,- Lo! Allah is an enemy to those who reject Faith.

Shakir: Whoever is the enemy of Allah and His angels and His messengers and Jibreel and Meekaeel, so surely Allah is the enemy of the unbelievers.

Muhammad Sarwar: and as a confirmation of (original) Scripture and whoever is the enemy of God, His angels, His Messenger, Gabriel and Michael, should know that God is the enemy of those who hide the Truth..

Mohsin Khan: "Whoever is an enemy to Allah, His Angels, His Messengers, Jibrael (Gabriel) and Mikael (Michael), then verily, Allah is an enemy to the disbelievers."

Arberry: Whosoever is an enemy to God and His angels and His Messengers, and Gabriel, and Michael - surely God is an enemy to the unbelievers.'


Maybe next time you could deign to tell me how I am wrong, not just that I am wrong.

 

[Augustus]

That was entirely gratuitous. Why didn't you save yourself a lot of keystrokes and just say, "IS NOT"!!

Maybe next time you could deign to tell me how I am wrong, not just that I am wrong.

You said you just read the Quran as a stand alone text yet in this thread you have talked about a) Muhammad starting in Mecca then going to Medina b) assumed there are such things as Meccan and Medinan surahs c) talked about reading the Quran in 'chronological order' d) discussed Banu Qurayza

For all of these you are dependent on hadith/sirah literature (and often additional exegesis).

So can we agree that it is perfectly clear that you do not read the Quran as a stand alone text?

s far as the translation of "allah Ado al kafareena", argue with these guys, not me.

The Quranic Arabic Corpus - Translation

Sahih International: Whoever is an enemy to Allah and His angels and His messengers and Gabriel and Michael - then indeed, Allah is an enemy to the disbelievers.

Pickthall: Who is an enemy to Allah, and His angels and His messengers, and Gabriel and Michael! Then, lo! Allah (Himself) is an enemy to the disbelievers.

Yusuf Ali: Whoever is an enemy to Allah and His angels and messengers, to Gabriel and Michael,- Lo! Allah is an enemy to those who reject Faith.

Shakir: Whoever is the enemy of Allah and His angels and His messengers and Jibreel and Meekaeel, so surely Allah is the enemy of the unbelievers.

Muhammad Sarwar: and as a confirmation of (original) Scripture and whoever is the enemy of God, His angels, His Messenger, Gabriel and Michael, should know that God is the enemy of those who hide the Truth..

Mohsin Khan: "Whoever is an enemy to Allah, His Angels, His Messengers, Jibrael (Gabriel) and Mikael (Michael), then verily, Allah is an enemy to the disbelievers."

Arberry: Whosoever is an enemy to God and His angels and His Messengers, and Gabriel, and Michael - surely God is an enemy to the unbelievers.'

You claimed that Quranic translation is not influenced by hadith/sirah as "words are words". This is obviously wrong.

Quranic scholars have never been able to agree what many words and phrases mean in Arabic, how can you choose what to translate them to without relying on external information to decide what is correct? (for example the term ummi often translated to 'illiterate' and used to claim Muhammed was illiterate but could mean gentile, or not taught in scripture, etc. Some choose one of these options, some leave the term untranslated

You seem not to realise that translation requires adopting a particular methodology as linguistic features don't just magically replicate in different languages. So it is naive to think "words are words"

When translating what is most important? To preserve meaning (i.e. to preserve sectarian orthodoxy)? to preserve rhyme scheme? to replicate grammatical form? to simplify language and make easy to understand?

So you quote Sahih International. You may have noticed this contains words and phrases in (brackets), which are words that don't appear in the original and are added to clarify according to Sunni Orthodoxy based on hadith/sirah.

The Sahih International translation is an English Language translation of the Quran that has been used by Islam's most conservative adherents.[1] Published by the Publishing House (dar), dar Abul Qasim, Saudi Arabia, it is one of the World's most popular Quran translations.[2]

Translated by three American women, Emily Assami, Mary Kennedy, and Amatullah Bantley,[3] it uses un-archaic language.[4] Notable conventions include rendering the God in Islam as Allah as they believe it is not okay to use the English word.[5]

The translation has been described as biased towards "Sunni orthodoxy", which according to authors, requires words to be inserted in square paranthesis.[6] The translation has become the main version used in English-language propaganda put out by ISIS.[1] It has also been sponsored and promoted by Saudi Arabia's Wahhabi ideology. For these reasons it has been defined as an ultraconservative translation.[7]

This differs from say Arberry, which aims to preserve grammatical form as much as possible making it harder to read and understand. It is a less sectarian translation and does not contain interpolations, however even this relies on hadith/sirah to some extent. He even named the text The Quran Interpreted as he is aware that there is no such thing as a neutral translation.

So do you still claim that translation is not impacted by hadith/sirah as "words are words"?

 

[muhammad_isa]

Assalamuwa'alaikum

This thread is really about this:-

Most Shi'a Muslims use different books of hadith from those used by other Muslims, who prize the six major hadith collections. In particular, Twelver Shi'a consider many Sunni transmitters of hadith to be unreliable because many of them took the side of Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman and Ali instead of only Ali (and the rest of Muhammad's family) and the majority of them were narrated through certain personalities that waged war against Ahlul Bayt or sided with their enemies such as Aisha that fought Ali at Jamal, or Muawiya who did so at Siffin. Hussain (grandson of Muhammad and son of Ali ibn Abi Talib) was martyred at the Battle of Karbala. Shia trust traditions transmitted through the Imams, Muhammad's descendants through Fatima Zahra
-wiki-

I have to say, as a convert, I find the position of Shi'a regards hadith untenable.
Islam isn't about "royalty", imo.