Announcement

Collapse

Islam Guidelines

Theists only.

This forum is a debate area to discuss issues pertaining to Islam. This forum is generally for theists only, and is not the area for debate between atheists and theists. Non-theist may not post here without first obtaining permission from the moderator of this forum. Granting of such permission is subject to Moderator discretion - and may be revoked if the Moderator feels that the poster is not keeping with the spirit of the World Religions Department.



Atheists are welcome to discuss and debate these issues in the Apologetics 301 forum without such restrictions.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Charis & Sadaqa, the roads meet

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • siam
    replied
    Originally posted by 37818 View Post
    http://www.islamicstudies.info/tafhe...ra=6&verse=163
    
    (6:163) He has no associate. Thus have I been bidden, and I am the foremost of those who submit themselves (to Allah).`
    Thankyou for the effort of finding and sharing this.... I hope others may be able to use it as a resource to double check information....(the tafsir is a bit shallow---but better than nothing)

    As you may have noticed by reading the previous verses beginning with 6:155--the Quran is explaining the human use of "reason" to find excuses not to do the right thing. A list of excuses is given so that the audience is aware that such excuses will not be accepted. God has provided Guidance as a mercy (Grace) so that people may follow the right path. In fact, I actually had a conversation with a non-Muslim similar to the proposition in 6:158---that if God had wanted humanity to believe---he should have sent a revelation/angel/sign to everyone---not just one person----then there would be no doubt. And this led to a discussion about free-will---for if God had done so, it would have compromised our ability to choose freely---but as a text, (Quran) an individual has the opportunity to use his intellect and reason---to engage critically---then to make a choice. The use of ones intellect and reason to come to the conviction of One God is the story of Prophet Abraham in the Quran---that is why verse 6:161 says it (Guidance) is the religion/way of Abraham. Verse 163 is in the context of the previous verses concluding that when one has arrived at conviction, one must submit willingly to God's will.

    In this context of "submission" (Islam) ---as well as Zakat/Sadaqa (Charity) verse 6:165 is relevant.
    (6:165) For He it is Who has appointed you vicegerent over the earth, and has exalted some of you over others in rank that He may try you in what He has bestowed is upon you. Indeed your Lord is swift in retribution, and He is certainly All-Forgiving, All-Compassionate.

    The verse points out that God has given some people more and others less---those who have more, have a higher commensurate degree of responsibility as Trustees (Khalifa)---it is a test and they will be judged accordingly.

    The reason why submission (to God) is important in this context is because of the juxtaposition between hierarchy and equality. In the Islamic context---God alone is superior---all creation is inferior to God. Thus, all humanity is equally inferior to God, thereby, they are all equal to one another in front of God. (to say that one group of humanity is more inferior---automatically makes another group superior---but, God alone is superior). This means that despite human diversity in form or circumstances---all humanity is equal to one another and our diversity is a test of our compassion and mercy towards each other. Therefore, the relationship between God and man is that of master and servant, or King and subject---superior/inferior---but the relationship between Man and Man (humanity) is that of equals---none is superior/inferior to another. To put it another way---God is the giver, humanity is the receiver--since God has no needs, humanity is incapable of "giving" to God---but between people, the relationship is one of sharing between equals---even in the context of charity.
    Thus, the poor, needy, are receiving what is due to them (obligation)---because the right to wealth and happiness is given by God to all humanity and not the entitlement of just a few allocated by some man-made set of "rights" or systems, or laws....

    This premise is a different concept of equality than that of the Enlightenment/Modernity in which one group was "more equal" than others being more civilized, or more progressive, or more whatever....and the entitlement of "equality" is built on the condition that the "other" become "like us". (equality = sameness)

    Leave a comment:


  • 37818
    replied
    http://www.islamicstudies.info/tafhe...ra=6&verse=163
    
    (6:163) He has no associate. Thus have I been bidden, and I am the foremost of those who submit themselves (to Allah).`

    Leave a comment:


  • elam
    replied
    The topic of this thread is Charis & Sadaqa. If you are too ignorant to contribute to the discussion, go long, long, long away...

    Leave a comment:


  • Sparko
    replied
    Originally posted by elam View Post
    If you had said that in the first place, instead of your postered puff-chested aggressive rant, I wouldn't have needed to make a 100% scriptural defense of the Christian position!

    As it was, your attack fumed me.

    If what you say is sincere, you should have contacted me via private mail.
    the reason I brought it up in public was because you made your statements in public and other members have expressed concerns about you and they deserved to see your answer.

    If you are sincere, I thank you for your support in my attempt to use Arabic terminology to communicate western Christian ideas.
    I have no idea if that is what you were doing. It is what you now claim. but your outburst has made me wonder.

    --------------------

    two things you moderators need to discuss...

    I suspect you aren't aware of it, but it is something you moderators should definitely discuss. TWEB is gaining a disreputable reputation in numerous conservative circles for its bias.
    1. Tweb has always been it's own. We don't kowtow to anyone.
    2. What the heck are you even talking about? We are too biased for conservatives? In what manner?
    3. Nothing is keeping anyone here. We have been around for 14 years now.

    My recent experience via Mozilla of advice that TWEB was a source of malware, adware etc concerns me, and I presume others who have received the notice...
    Then you should probably not come here.

    Leave a comment:


  • elam
    replied
    Originally posted by Sparko View Post
    Wow. Methinks thou protesteth way too freaking much.

    I asked a simple question. I will show your answer to others so they can make a decision. I was actually on your side until I just read your over the top rant. Others have said that you seem more muslim than Christian, I said you might be trying to use muslim terms to talk to a muslim. But after that complete rant, I am not so sure. Not my decision though.
    If you had said that in the first place, instead of your postered puff-chested aggressive rant, I wouldn't have needed to make a 100% scriptural defense of the Christian position!

    As it was, your attack fumed me.

    If what you say is sincere, you should have contacted me via private mail.

    If you are sincere, I thank you for your support in my attempt to use Arabic terminology to communicate western Christian ideas.

    --------------------

    two things you moderators need to discuss...

    I suspect you aren't aware of it, but it is something you moderators should definitely discuss. TWEB is gaining a disreputable reputation in numerous conservative circles for its bias.

    My recent experience via Mozilla of advice that TWEB was a source of malware, adware etc concerns me, and I presume others who have received the notice...
    Last edited by elam; 03-03-2017, 06:58 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • siam
    replied
    @elam
    Many of my thoughts are unformulated and I am still making up my mind on some issues, so I am using you to bounce ideas off of, and I hope you do the same and share your ideas and concerns....

    Exclusivity/Property---
    My concern is with all the groups---Nations, ethnicity, families...as for family, the concern was sparked by your comment about homelessness. Does the "family" have the right to kick someone out into the street because they have a problem with the behavior---such as alcoholism, addiction etc. On the other hand, the safety and security of the other members of the family are also important considerations....and rights. There should be a better way for us (community and family) to handle troubled human beings without throwing them away? I also have misgivings about the nation-state and national borders...etc. There should be a better balance between our need for security and our obligation towards compassion and mercy...of 114 surah, 113 Surah of the Quran begin with the words "In the name of God the most compassionate, the most merciful". So, to be true to these values...one needs to think of a way of community building that cares for the needy while also providing for the support of the caregivers...since I am Muslim---I look at historical examples of (Muslim) community building, for ideas....but care for the needy is an important value for all religions and historical religions have practiced good community building in pre-modern times....so there can be a variety of ideas....

    Proud Catholic/Multiculture---I agree that different religions have their own meta-narratives that give them a particular world-view. Such diversity makes our engagement with the world more interesting. But---it also makes groups different. Though humanity and its nature and needs are not all that different from one group to the other, the interpretations and implementations of our (common) values may take on variety....just as they vary from generation to generation also.....But if we are to be true to our "way"---we need to respect our own values so that we can respect those of others. The present multiculture system does not allow for this--we are all required to homogenize into a public monoculture....and in an age of globalization, if there is going to be only one dominant "culture" in the public space---whose is it going to be?...is a question that distresses everyone. So, perhaps Pluralism may be a better way than Secularism......?....Religious identities are already global (at least for the major world religions)...and so these would provide a better platform for identity-constructs and group-building with the added benefit of encouraging humanity towards its potential for excellence and balanced altruism...?.....

    Leave a comment:


  • siam
    replied
    @ elam
    Right to lineage/identity (nasl) (subject of Kohen)
    Think-by-proxy

    The Sunni/Shia split occurred because there was a dispute as to who would succeed as leader after the Prophet (pbuh) (The Prophet was chosen by the community of Yathrib) When it came time to decide on the next leader there was a split. The question of legitimacy occured. It was easier to convince people of legitimacy if there was a connection to the family of the Prophet....later, the Abbasid (Sunni) and the Fatimid (Shia) dynasties both used descent as a means for legitimacy. The king of Jordan also claims descent from the family of the Prophet(pbuh). The Sharia protects the right to one's identity both for adults as well as children---so a child who is adopted---still retains his name and origins. Yet, identity-constructs can be abused and one has to beware of excess and ego......The Shia have a concept of an Imamate--a spiritual leader who is from the line of the family of the Prophet---but since he does not exist, the practice is the same as Sunni---both use scholars

    The use of Scholars can be abused if people do not use their intellect but blindly follow others. The Quran does not encourage blind belief as this can cause one to fall into "Shirk" (superstitions)---on the other hand, it is difficult to verify everything. Islam is a "way of life" and an average person is so busy living and fulfilling his obligations---it is simpler to follow. So there is an element of "thinking-by-proxy"---let the scholars figure things out and we---the average person, simply follow their conclusions.....So debates about difficult issues such as medical and bio-ethics, Finance and economic ethics, ethical governance...and so forth are left upto Scholars to conclude. Fortunately, Islam is not an "organized" religion with a hierarchical Church system---so people can choose opinions or conclusions (somewhat). Islam is more of an "organic" system....a people's religion.....?....

    So "Scholars" such as Abdal-Wahab get followers known as the Wahabi (or Salafi---depending) who advocate for a "Pure" Islam. Its been labelled as a reformist/reactionary movement ---but its alliance with the Saudi monarchy who in turn are allied with the U.S. makes it used/abused for extreme political purposes......creating headaches for the rest of us Muslims.....

    ...So, as the Prophet recommended, to seek knowledge is a duty of all Muslims for this is the only way to make intelligent choices....

    Leave a comment:


  • siam
    replied
    The terms Muslim/muslim ....and Charis

    The Quran uses many concept-words and the term "muslim" in the Quran is not a label for a group--but rather it is about the intentions/heart or attitude. In practice (in society) it is a Label for a group---There is "Muslim" in the context of Sharia (law) because Sharia applies to Muslims only....and so one first has to define who is the "Muslim" to whom it applies.....

    The Quranic term refers to the spirit/intent as in those who submit to God's will. In the case of the creation that does not have free-will---such as mountains, earth, etc ---these are "muslim" because they automatically submit to God's will/God's laws (as they have no will of their own). God's laws are all the laws of nature and human nature that govern us as well as our environment. In this context, babies are "muslim" because their ego and free-will is not yet fully developed and so they are automatically aligned to God's will. (according to the concept of Fitra---human nature).

    This may have some similarity to the RCC idea of Charis--self-emptying so as to fill with grace.....?....but there is another concept in the Quran which may be closer. The (Arabic)word "Ihsan". There are 3 spiritual levels and Islam (submission) is the lowest because it entails submitting to God's will/God's laws---and this can be done without much thought. But to think and understand is very important because without it, we can fall into superstitions (the condition of pre-islamic Arabia) so, Iman (Faith/Trust) is necessary and this means one is to use our intellect and reason to arrive at heartfelt conviction. Heartfelt conviction is good and necessary for spiritual wellbeing but to be of benefit to all of God's creation (which is our obligation as Trustees)---this conviction must be transformed into right action and this is Ihsan (excellence). It is to conduct oneself as if we see God, but if not, then to understand that God sees us.

    Leave a comment:


  • siam
    replied
    Originally posted by Cerebrum123 View Post
    elam, do you follow the five pillars of Islam? Do you bow to all of Mohammed's decisions? If not, then you're not a Muslim according to the Koran.

    Say, (O Muhammad, to mankind): If ye love Allah, follow me; Allah will love you and forgive you your sins. Allah is Forgiving, Merciful. S. 3:31 Pickthall

    If you aren't following Mohammed unquestioningly you aren't a true Muslim according to the Koran.

    Qur'an 4:65—But no, by your Lord, they can have no Faith, until they make you (O Muhammad) judge in all disputes between them, and find in themselves no resistance against your decisions, and accept (them) with full submission.

    Qur'an 33:36—It is not for a believer, man or woman, when Allah and His Messenger have decreed a matter, that they should have any option in their decision. And whoever disobeys Allah and His Messenger, he has indeed strayed in a plain error.

    Qur'an 5:101-102—O ye who believe! Ask not questions about things which, if made plain to you, may cause you trouble. But if ye ask about things when the Qur'an is being revealed, they will be made plain to you, Allah will forgive those: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most-forbearing. Some people before you did ask such questions, and on that account lost their faith.

    That means you aren't a Muslim until you've accepted everything Mohammed taught. You can't be a Christian and Muslim because the two faiths are contradictory at the core. Mohammed taught Muslims to be severe against disbelievers, and merciful among themselves, Jesus taught people to love even their enemies. Mohammed said that Jesus was not God, while Jesus claimed to be divine.

    When reading/quoting the Quran---I urge people to look at the verses preceding and following the verse quoted to get the context---if not, then the Quran is being misquoted and erroneous assumptions made on the fragmented, out-of-context quote.

    For example--Quran 4:65 is in the context of the munafiqun (hypocrites) specifically mentioned in 4:61---these are people who pretend belief, but behave unethically...and when they get into trouble---come to the Prophet seeking justice. The Quran is advising that all people must be dealt with justly as only God knows their hearts. Perhaps Just dealings may open their hearts to conviction.

    Quran 5:101-102 is in reference to the pre-Islamic superstitious beliefs---specified in verse 5:103. Verse 101 says that questions are welcome and answers will be given---and this was indeed the case. The Quranic revelation was interactive and while it does not record the questions that were asked...the answers are recorded.....which is why context is very important.

    and this (interactive-ness) is the context of verse 33:36---the question is about the Prophet's adopted son and his marriage/divorce---and it is in this context that this verse was revealed. You can read the verses that follow to get the story behind verse 33:36.
    There is another context to these verses (v33:35)---the equality of men and women. Most languages are androcentric (default masculine gender) and this was pointed out by some of the women. This revelation comes in this context and these verses specifically and very pointedly include "women" to emphasize gender equality.

    Leave a comment:


  • Cerebrum123
    replied
    Originally posted by elam View Post
    According to the Quran Jesus & the apostles were Muslims! Anybody that submits themselves to God is a Muslim in Mohammad's book!
    And I just quoted the section that stipulates what "submitting to God" entails in Islam. You must submit to Mohammed. You avoided the question about whether or not you are doing that.

    Whose will do you attempt to follow? If your own, then you don't follow Jesus' submission to the will of his Father! Thus you are not a Christian. If you bow to the will of Jesus' Father, then by the definition of Arabic terms you are a Muslim. It ain't rocket science!!!
    I follow God the Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. A Muslim doesn't do any of that. They think God isn't a father to anyone, that Jesus was just an ordinary prophet, and IIRC that the Holy Spirit is just another name for the angel Gabriel. You are clearly using terms you don't understand.

    I wasn't expecting the stupidity of some here at TWEB. In my early era, the followers of Mohammad were referred to as Mohammedans not Muslims or simply followers of Mohammad.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammedan

    The modern terms Islam & Muslim are simply counter missionary terms that have gained currency in the west in the last 50 or so years...
    You're calling people at TWeb stupid, and you're using wikipedia as your source?

    The irony is palpable. BTW, I gave you the Islamic definition of a Muslim, from the Koran. In Islam that's the exact words of Allah, so you don't get a higher authority. Mohammedan is the term Muslims find problematic, because it implies a worship of Mohammed. Did you know Mohammed claimed to be the first Muslim according to several translations?

    Hilali Khan 6:163 "He has no partner. And of this I have been commanded, and I am the first of the Muslims."

    Saheeh International 6:163 No partner has He. And this I have been commanded, and I am the first [among you] of the Muslims."

    You're the one who is misinformed here elam. You'd do well to read my posts before attempting to jump down my throat. Makes your posts appear to be full of hate.

    Leave a comment:


  • elam
    replied
    Originally posted by Cerebrum123 View Post
    elam, do you follow the five pillars of Islam? Do you bow to all of Mohammed's decisions? If not, then you're not a Muslim according to the Koran.
    According to the Quran Jesus & the apostles were Muslims! Anybody that submits themselves to God is a Muslim in Mohammad's book!

    Whose will do you attempt to follow? If your own, then you don't follow Jesus' submission to the will of his Father! Thus you are not a Christian. If you bow to the will of Jesus' Father, then by the definition of Arabic terms you are a Muslim. It ain't rocket science!!!

    I wasn't expecting the stupidity of some here at TWEB. In my early era, the followers of Mohammad were referred to as Mohammedans not Muslims or simply followers of Mohammad.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammedan

    The modern terms Islam & Muslim are simply counter missionary terms that have gained currency in the west in the last 50 or so years...

    Leave a comment:


  • Cerebrum123
    replied
    elam, do you follow the five pillars of Islam? Do you bow to all of Mohammed's decisions? If not, then you're not a Muslim according to the Koran.

    Say, (O Muhammad, to mankind): If ye love Allah, follow me; Allah will love you and forgive you your sins. Allah is Forgiving, Merciful. S. 3:31 Pickthall

    If you aren't following Mohammed unquestioningly you aren't a true Muslim according to the Koran.

    Qur'an 4:65—But no, by your Lord, they can have no Faith, until they make you (O Muhammad) judge in all disputes between them, and find in themselves no resistance against your decisions, and accept (them) with full submission.

    Qur'an 33:36—It is not for a believer, man or woman, when Allah and His Messenger have decreed a matter, that they should have any option in their decision. And whoever disobeys Allah and His Messenger, he has indeed strayed in a plain error.

    Qur'an 5:101-102—O ye who believe! Ask not questions about things which, if made plain to you, may cause you trouble. But if ye ask about things when the Qur'an is being revealed, they will be made plain to you, Allah will forgive those: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most-forbearing. Some people before you did ask such questions, and on that account lost their faith.

    That means you aren't a Muslim until you've accepted everything Mohammed taught. You can't be a Christian and Muslim because the two faiths are contradictory at the core. Mohammed taught Muslims to be severe against disbelievers, and merciful among themselves, Jesus taught people to love even their enemies. Mohammed said that Jesus was not God, while Jesus claimed to be divine.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sparko
    replied
    Wow. Methinks thou protesteth way too freaking much.

    I asked a simple question. I will show your answer to others so they can make a decision. I was actually on your side until I just read your over the top rant. Others have said that you seem more muslim than Christian, I said you might be trying to use muslim terms to talk to a muslim. But after that complete rant, I am not so sure. Not my decision though.

    Leave a comment:


  • elam
    replied
    Sparko,

    Are you so blinded by bigotry that you are incapable of comprehending plain & explicit English. Go read the OP again... What part of the following couldn't you comprehend.
    "I now consider myself a Nicene Christian by conviction, rather than by birth! After much study (prayer is a given for guidance) I am committed to the synodal decisions of the disputes resolved in 325CE, 381CE, 431CE & 451CE."

    Originally posted by Sparko View Post
    say what?

    OK explain how you can be Catholic and Muslim?
    Are you so blinded by bigotry that you reject the NT witness?

    Have you not read Jesus' testimony "Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in the Spirit and in truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks. God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in the Spirit and in truth.” John 4:23-24

    Explain to be how you can you consider yourself a Christian if you have not submitted yourself to God the Father, whom the NT identifies as he who rose Jesus from the dead? Do you reject Christ or follow him?

    Are you so ignorant of Christianity that you object to Jesus' decree "“No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them" (John 6:44). What is it that encourages the Father to draw us to himself?

    Are you so ignorant of Christianity that you refuse to follow Jesus example of submission to his Father.
    "Father, if you are willing, take this cup from me; yet not my will, but yours be done.” (Lk 22:42)

    Are you so ignorant of Christianity that you have forgotten Jesus' sample prayer "‘Our Father in heaven, hallowed be your name, [let] your kingdom come, [let] your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven. (Mt 6:9-10).

    Originally posted by Sparko View Post
    What exactly is your belief/faith?
    RCC. with 100% adherence to the synods of 325CE, 381CE, 431CE & 451CE as I plainly stated to Siam.

    Because you are obviously unfamiliar with Christian history that means I subscribe to the main ecumenical councils from Nicea to Chalcedon...

    Originally posted by Sparko View Post
    You say "nominally" catholic.
    I said I considered myself nominally RCC (a self depreciation). The Church sees me in a more favourable light. I have good standing.

    Basically I have two infirmities & can no longer drive. On Sundays the local buses run infrequently. So I don't attend church with any regularity.

    But in the RCC church attendance whilst encouraged for fellowship is not mandatory (you can't buy your way into heaven). Which is why mass is shown on TV most Sunday mornings - so guys like me can say mass if not directly participate in it.

    Originally posted by Sparko View Post
    That usually means non-practicing, in name only.
    Is a practicing Christian someone who dresses up on a Sunday, sits through a service yawning, and then socialises afterwards putting on great show of piety for an hour or so once a week? Or those who practices their religion with every breathe they take? The later is easy once you are relieved of the asphyxiation from colon self inspection..

    Originally posted by Sparko View Post
    A "social" Catholic.
    All Catholics are "social" it is one of the things that distinguishes us from the snobbery of others.

    Unfortunately, because of my infirmities I rarely get to socialise...

    Originally posted by Sparko View Post
    And this is not the first time you have alluded to being Muslim...
    Actually, as far as I can recall it is the first time I've applied the term to myself and if you didn't have an obvious reading disability you'd have comprehended I used Arabic terms in a Christian context!

    Originally posted by Sparko View Post
    ...confusing the heck out of me and others.
    Your confusion has resulted from your inability to read what I wrote, in the clear context in which I wrote it. Consider Jeremiah 5:21 "Hear this, you foolish and senseless people, who have eyes but do not see, who have ears but do not hear"

    I'm suspecting you have become unfamiliar with the NT

    Originally posted by Sparko View Post
    Allah is unity.
    If so then it is a good word to use to describe the unity of the Father, Son & Spirit! But you are dead wrong...

    The word "Allah" is simply the Arabic word for "God". It is used by Arabic speaking Christians to refer to the plurality, and my the followers of Mohammad to refer to a singularity.

    You are funny! I can imaging you jumping up and down shouting that the English word "God" identifies a singularity because that is how the JWs use the term?

    Originally posted by Sparko View Post
    The Christian God is a Trinity.
    You really need to read the NT, the Nicene fathers. Novatian's treatise on the Trinity written about 50 years before Nicea should inform you about the Nicean (RCC. EOC, ROC, OOC etc) teaching...
    http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0511.htm

    Originally posted by Sparko View Post
    How can you submit to the God of Islam, claim that you are muslim, and still say you are a Christian? You can't.
    Go reread the OP! I never said anything you accuse me of...

    What I did was use everyday Arabic terms that have a meaning in Christianity & a meaning amoungst the followers of Mohammad. The ideas are not dissimilar, Even the target is similar. In the Christian sense as spoken by Jesus "...I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God"...

    A.Paul makes my point even clearer "...God exalted [Jesus] to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father".

    Muslim's could readily agree with that part of A.Paul's testimony...Notice at Phil 2:9 "[Jesus] humbled himself by becoming obedient to death". This encompasses the concepts of the words "muslim" & "islam" in the English meaning of these Arabic terms.

    In my local area there is/was a Presbyterian minister, sponsored by the Baptists, distributing English translations of the Quran & the Holy Zabur (the Mohammadian copy of the OT Psalms). I met him once and asked him why? Apparently he had been a missionary in Turkey, had been deported several times and was now under the threat of imprisonment if he returned. So, he intended to continue his work in Oz. But why distribute the Quran? He replied something to the effect: "Simple! It is the best intro you can get to deliver the Christian message.to a Muslim! Many OZ Muslims don't read Arabic, so haven't read the Quran".

    Sounds logical to me. Have a think on John 4.

    Originally posted by Sparko View Post
    Please clarify or change your faith designation to something else.
    It ain't me that needs to change my faith designation...

    ! clarified and affirmed my RCC beliefs in the OP, and numerous times in this post, I pressume that should satisfy you. If not open a thread in Christianity and we can see which of us, or both, are faithful to Nicea & Chalcedon.
    Last edited by elam; 03-02-2017, 01:42 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • elam
    replied
    Originally posted by siam View Post
    There has to be a way in which people can stay true to their values and convictions without imposing them on others---but allowing others to also live with their own values and convictions--fully, in all aspects of their lives....
    The Oz model might not be perfect but the internationalists keep pointing at us as having successfully implemented multiculturalism.

    I might be cynical in saying the Oz success has been more of an accident than design. After WW2, my generation was inundated by European refugees of various nationalities, traditions, religions & languages. As kids we had a choice, accept them or oppose them...they had greater organisational strength than us, so...it was easier to accept them... Then we all grew up, got married, had kids of our own and identified as one...

    I have a three generation theory that's held true for decades. The parents get homesick and try to recreate their homeland in Oz, so establish introspective enclaves. The kids are brought up "more Greek than the Greeks", and feel out of place at school, so conflict arises. These guys grow up, marry and, remembering their childhood bring their kids up midway between the old traditions and the new reality. The next generation is 100% Australian in the essential things.

    I've noticed secular Muslims assimilate much quicker than the religious, but that said: if I was talking to them on the phone I wouldn't know they were Muslim.

    I was just reflecting on a personal experience that belies what I've purported: On Wednesday I walked down to the corner to catch a bus. It was raining and a group of people were standing around with their umbrellas up. Except for one woman who was crouched under a tree trying to keep dry. I walked up to her and said "I have a large umbrella, you don't May I share it with you". She accepted the offer. I would not have done that if the woman could be identified Muslim. Not because of any prejudice on my part but I know it is haram for me to approach a Muslim woman unless I am known to her (and that is a compromise position on the part of Oz Muslims).

    Originally posted by siam View Post
    Caliphate---I reject the Modern concept of Caliphate that seems to be going around these days. The pre-modern concept simply referred to a leader whose "office" was a trustee of the people---regardless of whether the "office" was chosen/elected or dynastic. (Islam does NOT approve of the concept of the "Divine right of kings"---as all humanity is created equal). It seems to me the "Caliphate" as it seems to be envisioned today, is a "Nation-State" concept but with an exotic label.... The concept I prefer is that of an "Ummah" (global community).
    I had in mind the Mongol invasions & Ottoman occupations. Imu, by the mid 13th century the Caliphate system was in virtual collapse which made the Mongol invasion easy...

    Originally posted by siam View Post
    Identity---Group-identity is important for human beings (for some reason) and national identity is one type of group identity.
    Maybe I am aberrant All my life I have refused to self identify with any group. I admit to being RCC & a 5th generation Australia, but I don't usually see any need to advertise either.

    Funny story: Years ago I was at a function and found myself with a group of strangers. We ended up talking about current events. I contributed a comment, and someone said sarcastically "You'd have to be Catholic to..." I was so proud! A badge of honour had just been awarded! To be truely RCC is to have a particular mindset...

    Originally posted by siam View Post
    I don't have any problems with the multiple group identities any individual may have. But excessive exclusivity based on the idea that "you cannot belong because you are not good enough" (superiority/inferiority) can lead to toxic consequences.
    The only time I have experienced discrimination (rejection) was at a Jewish function to which I had been invited. Within a few minutes of arrival someone said audibly "Whats that "goy" doing here". My Jewish companion turned me around and marched me out of the venue. These things happen, but we shouldn't stew on them. In my memory I've tagged the individual as "avoid" but not the group.

    Originally posted by siam View Post
    We need to accept that we are all brothers in humanity (Bani Adam) and humanity is also "our" group and "our" identity.
    I also push that line. It is of interest to me that whilst Lot's sons born to his daughters became opponents of the tribes that arose from Ishmael & isaac, but Ishmael & Isaac seemed to have got along (Genesis 25:9).

    Originally posted by siam View Post
    Also---I have a problem with the idea of a property/land belonging exclusively to one group of people
    Do you mean nationality, ethnicity or families, collectives etc?

    [QUOTE=siam;421308]such a concept seems to forget that the whole earth belongs to God---NOT MAN. We need to work out the tensions between our God-given rights, with our God-given obligations. The right to property cannot be at the expense of someone else's right to life......[/quote}I think we are on the same page here. As a traditionally nomadic hunter & gathering group Indigenous Australians in Central Australia once had no concept of property, but they did have a concept of territory. Thus they were not receptive to any other group hunting or drinking from their sumps or water holes. ironically, they left sign-posts around directing others to water should they have need. From what I gather: typically if someone was caught poaching, the tribesmen would grab their spears and go to investigate. If the poacher had good reason for being where they were, then OK. Otherwise they go speared in the leg (which in the desert allowed a 50/50 chance of survival).

    I think property ownership is inherent to human nature. Though that might translate to the idea of "land". In primitive society it could be ledge on a cliff. My surname harks back to a tribe that lived on a side of a cliff above the fiord. Or a house on sticks in the middle of a marsh land. Or a unit 25 stories up in Hong Kong.

    One of my interests is concept housing and town planning. Already in China and somewhere else there has been constructed a complete self contained small city encapsulated in a high rise building. I must search out the video for you. Conceptually its like a mall, where as you start on the ground floor and end up on the third floor without ever realising you are ascending. They ultimate idea is you leave the land for growing food & grazing & trees for ecological survival. Housing, schools, hospitals, shops, entertainment can be stacked on top of each other. The big difference between the idea & today's standard building is that internals to each unit would be much larger = equivalent to a delux home. Instead of corridors you'd have wide streets with indoor gardens. The costs are coming down rapidly as new materials & construction techniques come to market, so I'm hoping I'll get to see such developments here in Sydney.

    Originally posted by siam View Post
    Kohen (hereditary priesthood)---I agree but don't really have a problem with it as long as people have a choice.
    A Kohen is the high priest in Israel who prior to the establishment of the Kings ruled Israel. They are all suppose to be ancestors of Aaron's son whom he appointed as his successor. Ultimately, the priesthood and judges became hugely corrupt, which is why the Jews insisted on the establishment of a king "like the nations have". The history gets worse as time progressed...

    Originally posted by siam View Post
    But choice requires an obligation---individuals must think for themselves and make choices rather than think-by-proxy. (Shia concept of "Imam").
    Would you expand on that statement. I'm reading you as saying Muslims don't think for themselves, but by proxy = the Iman.

    Originally posted by siam View Post
    Originally posted by elam
    How is it that nationalists proclaim to be Muslim when it is obvious they submit themselves to human personalities rather than submitting themselves to the will of Allah?
    Not sure what this is in reference to...
    Numerous protests marches that have been in the news of late. Imo, the same issue applies to Christians...

    Originally posted by siam View Post
    What is God's will?----God's will = Right belief that promotes right intentions that lead to right actions for the benefit of all of God's creations (Khalifa/Trusteeship).
    OK!

    Originally posted by siam View Post
    Human beings interact as individuals but also as groups. We are social in our nature and prone to organizing in groups. The first "group" we encounter in life is that of the family. For groups to function smoothly, 2 things are required, leadership and rules/laws. That is why a Muslim (or any other human being) "submits" to the rules/laws of the social group they belong to (Such as that of the nation-state). Humanity are Trustees of God, not just as individuals but also as a group. Both aspects must be balanced in order to create harmony.
    OK!

    But that doesn't address the issue of Nationalist who are in the business of undermining the established social harmony. I'll drop this inquiry until next time I notice an event in the news. Much easier to discuss a specific event than a generalisation. Something triggered the inquiry by right now I'm too tired to remember what it was. This post took a lot of hours to write.

    ******************

    Before I forget. Earlier today I watched the videos you posted plus a couple of others. Thanks for the heads-up!

    Leave a comment:

widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
Working...
X