I agree that it's silly, and that's precisely what I'm trying to point out. That the Prophet was not drawing a line where Sunnis are correct, especially since the word (as its defined today) didn't even exist. The concept of Shia didn't exist while the Prophet PBUH was alive. Either they are both deviations from the Sunna or they are both correct. It makes absolutely no sense for one to be right and the other to be wrong. As for a general difference, I think the explanation you provided is far beyond generalization. Being part Iranian, part Arabic, part Turkish, I assure you that the difference begins with the Imamate but does not end or rest there. The Shiites have a broad acceptance of Sahaba, but not a complete acceptance. The Sunna however have an almost complete acceptance. The core issue is that the majority view is that the other side is not Muslim. Many Shiites, for example, do not consider food from Sunnis to be Halal/Kosher. It's common in Dubai for them to ship chickens from Iran. I do appreciate your comments, advice and kind words. I do insist, however, that these things are discussed at length because personally, I think that we may never agree, but it is important for others to see that there are two sides, and perhaps for me/trustme to acquire a different perspective unexpectedly. I will tone it down, thank you.
The bolded part told me enough about you to not put too much effort into this. I see where you're coming from now. I'll just summarize with this: 1) Consider your own words. At one point you say you only go to the schools of thought in ambiguous matters. At another point you say that I cannot derive anything from Hadith because I am not a "scholar". By this definition, other than scholars, no one should be able to derive anything, and everything is ambiguous. Therefore you must always go to the schools of thought. You can not choose anything outside the schools of thought. In addition, switching between schools is considered a danger because you may be cherry-picking for your own benefit. Oh and FYI, Aqeedah comes before Fiqh. You wouldn't choose the Fiqh school of thought before Aqeedah. Although this is not what seems to be happening in practice these days, it is logical that you would know your own Aqidah before you would think about knowing what school of Fiqh to follow. Btw, Ibn Khaldun, Al-Ghazali and Ibn Haitham are Asharis. Do you know how much Hadith and tafseer and commentary is transmitted to you from these 3 people? 2) There are absolutely no inconsistencies in the Quran, and no Hadiths or Tafseer or commentary or anything required. Frankly, you should be careful when implying that God's words require human assistance to be consistent. If you are looking for inconsistencies, I assure you that the inconsistencies would lie on the human side (Hadith) rather than on the divine side (Quran). Think about what you are saying for one second. Btw, they didn't travel lands to get one link correct. The reason they travelled lands is because Bukhari and Muslim are Tajiks/Uzbekis/Persians from former Persia and there was no Hadith in Persia. They travelled simply because that's what they had to do if they wanted to collect Hadith. 3) The idea here is that we have no friggin clue if the Prophet PBUH was talking about sects, schools of thought, schools of Aqidah, or anything with that Hadith. Your insistence that he's talking about sects indicates to me your belief that Sunnis are that one sect which is "correct" in their beliefs. Anyways, we agree to disagree. I'm happy to continue discussing this with you by email, feel free to email me through the board. I'll just leave you with a friendly thought. The Prophet PBUH hated division, groups, sects, seperation, segregation in all forms. It is clearly a reflection of the powerful nature of Tawheed. God is one. We have to try to be one, we have to strive for that perfection. Leave the groups behind. Be weary of people who like to create segregation, it's usually born out of their insecurity and need to feel special. Peace.
Wow. With every post you continue to embarrass yourself. You're doing a disservice to Palestinians and Muslims with your immaturity. Enjoy your ban.
I will admit that there has been an intellectual history wherein certain scholars have declared apostasy of particular individuals and/or groups, but very rarely was there ever wholescale declarations aimed at one side or the other (I'm admittedly a little less read when it comes to Shiah views of Sunnism so I miight be wrong in that aspect...I actually had no idea about the chicken thing which is pretty interesting to know). Generally, the declarations were more nuanced, attempting to filter through specific beliefs as beliefs of those outside of Islam verses those consistent with the message. Even when there was a wholescale declaration of apostasy claimed by an individual scholar, it was typically done contingent under a certain set of beliefs (ie, Sunni's/Shiah's who believe in the following dictates are not Muslim,....), and those scholarly opinions were products of a particular political, social, and religious context that differs greatly from our own. There's an excellent work of Imam al Ghazzali's that was translated by Dr. Sherman Jackson entitled 'On the Boundaries of Theological Tolerance in Islam' which addresses the crux of the discussion quite well. No problem, and I appreciate the tone and tenor of the response. I dont mind discussions of any sort, but think that sometimes we lose track of the environment within which those discussions take place. Though Clutchfans houses many Muslim users, the overwhelming majority are not, and probably dont care about the theological issues being discussed between yourself and trustme. It is in that light that I posted the advise, and pray that it is understood therein. Having read your reply to trustme though, I feel as though I HAVE to reply to one point you made: On this point, I believe you overplayed your hand just a tad. Although it is true that the entirety of the Quran was transmitted tawaatur and that the sunnah doesnt enjoy the same level of authenticity across the board, to state that the Quran can exist in isolation, absent of any explanation or prophetic commentary is a bit puzzling. Prayer, Fasting, Charity, and even Hajj would not be understood in the absence of prophetic traditions, and there are certain aspects of the Quran that had to have been lived out by certain companions to be understood. A glaring example that comes to mind is the verse that speaks of black and white threads and being able to distinguish between the two for determing the length of fasting. God's words requiring 'human assistance' is not necessarily the implication as much as it is to say that God Himself decreed that humans manifest the message in order for us to understand the message in real terms. This is explicated time and time again through verses that speak of obedience to God and the Messenger, and through verses that tell the Prophet to implore others to follow him. Peace.
So what have we learned from this thread so far? 1) Some of the leading English-speaking Muslim scholars denounce violence (+) 2) All Muslims agree on the interpretation of core parts of their religion (-) 3) All Muslims agree with the leading scholars and think Islam should be the religion of peace (-) 4) All Muslims denounce violence and do not see violence as a way to solve conflicts (-)
I would Praying Mantis kick and Drunken Monkey punch BEAT LA so hard that he would think T-Mac was the greatest Rocket ever and would then convert into a Mormonus!!!!!!
