Sunnis and Shiite Are Somehow Different IMO

[Gesundheit]

2 hours ago, Mesopotamian said:

I think there's a difference. Circling of the Ka'ba by Sunnis is nothing like Shitte's blood ralies. The Ka'ba is just a place to practice these rituals, and the rituals seem to be civilized in its nature even with geometric shapes, like the cube, and the circles around it, and don't forget, these are part of the core of the doctrine itself. On the other hand, we have Shitt's blood rallies, they are not a part of the doctrine of Islam, but alien practices, and just the idea of self-torture is regressed and retarded, or in our language (lower on the stages), but somehow, people like yourself would like to see it similar to Sunnis.

That's just how you're choosing to see it, and that outlook is obviously biased, not really sure why.

2 hours ago, Mesopotamian said:

Sunnis is the only pure Islam by the way. it is NOT a division of Islam, but Sunni doctrine is all about being as accurate as possible to how Muhammed wanted the Islam to be, it is more of a "scientific approach" to achieve the purest form of Islam as intended to be practiced by its founder. Anything rather than that is a diversion and a hoax. How can anybody gives themselves a right to say what, while ignoring what in our hand of heritage by thousands of Muslim scholars that spans over a millennia about the subject !

Their methods are good, but still questionable/imperfect. But you can't question them because they claim to have 100% accuracy.

Watch this series (30 episodes, I think). He deconstructs the whole Sunni approach down to the simplest bits. He's Sunni btw, but since he questioned the mainstream Sunni, he's perceived by many to be a Quranist or something like that.

2 hours ago, Mesopotamian said:

You ever bothered to read the Sunni heritage? hundreds or even thousands of books that try to keep Islam pure using a scientific based approach. (If Leo considers shamons of 40000 years back as doing a form of science, the Sunnis also have done a great deal of science to define what Islam is and what it isn't)

Extensively. And I've moved past it too. I think the mistake here is that you're not acknowledging the Shiite heritage and their science and methods, probably because you didn't even bother to research it.

Edited January 27, 2021 by Gesundheit

[Mesopotamian]

5 hours ago, louhad said:

Thanks, I didn't even have to flex any mental muscles on you. You don't realize this, but you just literally just proved shiia islam's validity for me lol. You didn't even need to type out step 1 actually. Step 2 is all you need. 

 

Every interpretation of a text is valid relative to the reader's framework of what he/she considers valid. This is what you ain't getting. Look up post-modernism. 

No you're not getting it. The book and Muhammed's life ARE ONE, or should I say IS ONE. You don't need to say the book can be interpreted through the reader's framework, this means that you throw Muhammed's life (The Sunni literature) in the trash! Can you at least entertain this idea I am telling you for a day before you reply here again?

[Mesopotamian]

@Gesundheit Shiite heritage is non-sense as I was talking with member @louhad . The Quran and Muhammed's life IS ONE, or ARE ONE. Sunnizim is a way to document and validate Muhammed's life, and it is sort of a scientific approach to try to extract more meaning from his life, cuz he's the founder of Islam, and then incorporate it with the Quran itself.

You just cannot assume that Quran and Muhammed are two separate entities, if you do so, this way, anyone who has the Quran and who invents an interpretation for it is like he/she creating a new branch of Islam.

It just doesn't make any sense to separate Quran from Sunnah, attach a new interpretation, and then say here's a new version of Islam. I mean on what basis you are basing this notion?

In Christianity for example, we have Jesus who never dictate a book, and tens of bibles were written around his story, nothing solid, all loose stuff, but here we have a different kind of doctrine where it is only valid and called "Islam" when Quran is taken within the narrow variations of Sunnah, other than that is just not Islam, unless you decide it is.

You get what I mean? I can get a Quran into a goat yoga class, and recite it while I am doing yoga and the goat on my back, and I call this a new version of Islam. But does this go with the well-documented life, acts and history of Islam's inventor Muhammed?

 

Edited January 27, 2021 by Mesopotamian

[snowyowl]

@Mesopotamian I just don't get this. The Quran isn't really a book about Mohammed, a biography of his life, but an alleged description of his visions. It was written down by other people and compiled after his death (according to the unprovable tradition). What you're saying sounds like your own belief system. Which you're perfectly free to have of course, but why not own it? 

[Gesundheit]

@Mesopotamian Look, you're getting too technical here, and then you're somehow missing the point of your own thread.

Sunni claims are BS. They don't know anything about Mohammad. The Quran was not written in Mohammad's life. It was written afterwards, and many of it is suspicious of loss and error. Hadith was not collected until 300 years after the death of Mohammad, and a lot of it is suspicious of loss and error. And the people who collected it were not plenty. They're one person at a lifetime, so there was no one to review their work and confirm it. One day, a man woke up and decided to voluntarily collect all the Hadith. There was no committee to proofread what he had done. The second man to collect the Hadith was a student of that guy. There's a lot of depth to this discussion. Watch the series I suggested if you're interested in understanding more.

What you're suggesting here is that Sunni are superior to all other sects because they are following the true Islam, but that's just not true. And it's precisely the issue, because what is the real Islam? How do you define true Islam? And how do you know that it isn't some rare Islamic sect that you have no idea of? You see, all you know about Islam is what you've heard from Sunni, because they're the majority. You haven't heard from others. And definitely Sunnis will tell you that they have the true Islam because of 1,2,3,etc... But when you truly question them, they will call you kafir and cast you out, maybe even sentence you to death. 

[Mesopotamian]

2 hours ago, Gesundheit said:

Sunni claims are BS. They don't know anything about Mohammad. The Quran was not written in Mohammad's life. It was written afterwards, and many of it is suspicious of loss and error. Hadith was not collected until 300 years after the death of Mohammad, and a lot of it is suspicious of loss and error. And the people who collected it were not plenty. They're one person at a lifetime, so there was no one to review their work and confirm it. One day, a man woke up and decided to voluntarily collect all the Hadith. There was no committee to proofread what he had done. The second man to collect the Hadith was a student of that guy. There's a lot of depth to this discussion. Watch the series I suggested if you're interested in understanding more.

I can't believe, you sort of like need them to adhere to today's standards? As I've listened to Sunni's defense, they said that writing wasn't a thing, and people were memorizing even the Quran. Some Hadith was written during Muhammed's time. I think you have to entertain the idea that writing wasn't a necessity perhaps? This is Sunni's claim.

 

2 hours ago, Gesundheit said:

What you're suggesting here is that Sunni are superior to all other sects because they are following the true Islam,

exactly, cuz islam is Muhammed's Sunnah, and Sunnis are practicing it the way its inventor has intended it to be practiced.

 

2 hours ago, Gesundheit said:

And how do you know that it isn't some rare Islamic sect that you have no idea of?

Yep, stage-green thinking. They want to believe so desperately that Sufisim represent true Islam or a newer better version. This is absolutely absurd to me.

I view my claim that True Islam is what goes according to Sunnah is as valid as your claim that Islam has developed and there's a rare sect bury themselves in the forest or underground can represent real, true Islam.

Don't try to simplify the matter and bring your counter argument. You're arguing if I make a counterfeit currency and call it money, then it's going to be as real as "real money"? In the absolute sense it can, but in a specific context, you'll sound crazy.

 

[Mesopotamian]

2 hours ago, snowyowl said:

I just don't get this. The Quran isn't really a book about Mohammed, a biography of his life, but an alleged description of his visions. It was written down by other people and compiled after his death (according to the unprovable tradition). What you're saying sounds like your own belief system. Which you're perfectly free to have of course, but why not own it? 

There's another division of the Islam that's Hadith, or Sunnah, which is all other things that you've mentions that are not in the Quran. Google it.

[Mesopotamian]

@Gesundheit

Hadith is like the epigenetic of the Quran, they way it should be interpreted and expressed. Shiite want to cancel all of that and keep power for themselves just because their ancestors are relatives of Muhammed. Also lets not forget that the Quran itself was invented as a pass to support Muhammed and enable him to be the prophet and the leader for Islamic nation, so it is all about Muhammed inedeed. The Hadith comes and support that and makes up for a perfect match. Maybe the Hadith was the words of Muhammed when he wasn't under whatever weed he was taking.

Anyone can come and device a new Islam for stage-green to believe in and buy it, but the truth is that Quran, Hadith, Muhammed, they are all one, they cannot be divided and cherry-picked on. If you want to understand Islam, you need to take in the whole package as is, and put aside the BS of Shiite, Sufis (I hope this doesn't sounds like a bullet to your ego) .

[Gesundheit]

@Mesopotamian I won't say anything. Just watch the series I suggested if you're truly interested in deconstructing the myth of true Islam. Otherwise, this discussion has ended before it even started, cuz you're not trying to see what I'm trying to say.

[Mesopotamian]

4 minutes ago, louhad said:

This is not a productive conversation. you have a really bad habit of creating strawmen. Please show me one post in this whole convo of someone(besides yourself lol) trying to claim that one form of Islam is objectively superior to another. 

I am trying my best with English a second language, and only introduced to something known as logical or reasonal thinking at age 33 of my life.

5 minutes ago, louhad said:

You don't know Mohammed. No practicing Sunni scholar does either. You don't really know how he intended Islam to be practiced despite your foolish certainty. 

Early Muslims do, and they memorized all his quotes, and all the Quran until the desperate need for copying through the means of writing presented itself.

6 minutes ago, louhad said:

Just because A form of Islam is not exactly how Mohammed envisioned it does not mean that those forms have no validity. 

Exactly the opposite of that. Quran, and Hadith AKA 'Sunnah' , meaning Muhammed's Saying when he wasn't taking whatever weed and producing Quran verses, these are all Muhammed's words, came out of his mouth. They all have similar story for how they have been written, and in close times

Gotta be so stupid not to see that. You CANNOT cherry pick and say that Quran is the book, and Muhammed's sayings or Hadith, in which Sunnis based their doctrine on in addition to Quran, you cannot take the Quran and try to find another new interpretation for it, while leaving the Hadith aside. Cuz usually this is how new sects are devised:

Step 1: Take The Quran itself.

Step 2: Neglect The Hadith,

Step 3: Attach your own new interpretation to the Quran.

Well What about Hadith? I mean isn't it what came from the Prophet's mouth? I simply and genuinely can't understand!

13 minutes ago, louhad said:

The only difference between "real" money and counterfeit money is that more people subjectively value "real" money more than counterfeit money

"Real money" is a part of system. I Am not specifically referring to counterfeits here, but let's say any paper with the word 'money' written on it in a big font, and 'legal tender' in a small font, and numbers in the corners.

I believe Quran and HAdith AKA Sunnah are one system. It is your choice to take Quran and recite it in a goat yoga class and invent a new sect. Is it going to be real for you? yes, but for me, and for those who can see this system, it is utter craziness.

 

[Mesopotamian]

18 minutes ago, Gesundheit said:

@Mesopotamian I won't say anything. Just watch the series I suggested if you're truly interested in deconstructing the myth of true Islam. Otherwise, this discussion has ended before it even started, cuz you're not trying to see what I'm trying to say.

Thanks, but No, this man looks like a westernized person, he's the last person you need to watch in order to understand more about Islam.

[Gesundheit]

3 minutes ago, Mesopotamian said:

Thanks, but No, this man looks like a westernized person, he's the last person you need to watch in order to understand more about Islam.

Don't judge the book by its cover. He's more open-minded than most Muslims.

But do whatever you want.

[Seeker531]

@Corpus I think the order that a scholar should interprete the scriptures might be almost every one else was illerate to that time but thats only speculation

22 hours ago, Corpus said:

Did Muhammad leave clear instructions about who his successor was to be, and if he did, how can we know what the instructions were? Would this be found in the 6 collections of "authentic" hadiths, which were compiled as collections many years after the Prophet passed away, if one is identifying as a Sunni? How reliable are these collections especially when you consider that Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim were compiled by persons whose first language wasn't even Arabic? Would a wise leader omit to leave instructions about his succession? The Quran says nothing about which of the 4 companions was to succeed the Prophet at all.

Islam tends to confer authority for textual interpretation to the scholars and frowns upon one making ones own analysis of the texts (which in terms of Hadith were compiled decades after the events they refer to, making them requiring of questioning); it is interesting to note that it is these same Hadiths which largely state and dictate the need to refer to scholarly interpretation which creates a blind-loop of sorts. The Hadiths, if one does adhere to them, also state categorically that calling one who calls themselves Muslim a Non-Muslim (ie takfir) is again something the scholar only is qualified to do, and not the layman; in fact the layman risks becoming a kafir by making unqualified takfir.

It is interesting how naming a thing and identifying with it produces a conceptual reality with consequences of action and belief made manifest in this worldly experience. 

 

  

 

 

[Seeker531]

You are too biased how history works. For example the wikipedia article writes that after 12 years the final book was written and thereby an implicit interpretation of his successor who ruled back then and by the way, there is huge evidence that every closest companions started compiling their own holy book and as history show the one which became the official one was the one of the winner, the caliph then and declared his own as the only official. And it isn't necessary to mention that those people were just selfish people who cared about power and had their own agenda. Fact is, you don't know and me neither.  Might be truer sources were killed off because they did not fit into the scheme. You should study other holymen and see how their teachings were twisted even after a short time. The ego likes to shape things to fit into their believe system. 

Edited January 27, 2021 by Seeker531

[Seeker531]

If he really channelled an entity then there is a huge difference between what Mohamed said during the day and what he's got from this entity because one was the words he got from an external source and the other his interpretation and others maybe just his usually character traits that were recorded and not embodied

 

[snowyowl]

6 hours ago, Mesopotamian said:

Also lets not forget that the Quran itself was invented as a pass to support Muhammed and enable him to be the prophet and the leader for Islamic nation, so it is all about Muhammed inedeed. The Hadith comes and support that and makes up for a perfect match.

This makes it sound like a stage red scheme to promote one individual to be the chief of the new Islamic tribe. 

From a spiritual rather than political point of view, what's the goal of Islam? Rather than copying the founder's lifestyle, isn't it important to have our own experience of God, our own revelation, for us all to become prophets? The idea of Mohammed as the final prophet is the hardest thing for me to accept. 

Edited January 27, 2021 by snowyowl

[Mesopotamian]

On 1/27/2021 at 9:13 PM, Seeker531 said:

You are too biased how history works. For example the wikipedia article writes that after 12 years the final book was written and thereby an implicit interpretation of his successor who ruled back then and by the way, there is huge evidence that every closest companions started compiling their own holy book and as history show the one which became the official one was the one of the winner, the caliph then and declared his own as the only official. And it isn't necessary to mention that those people were just selfish people who cared about power and had their own agenda. Fact is, you don't know and me neither.  Might be truer sources were killed off because they did not fit into the scheme. You should study other holymen and see how their teachings were twisted even after a short time. The ego likes to shape things to fit into their believe system. 

What happened has happened, Shiite should suck it up, also stage-green people who wish that Islam can be represented by many sects. I don't intend to be rude or disrespectful, but this is how I see it. You don't need to over-think it.

The incidents on which Shiite base their arguments demonstrate clearly how the relatives of Muhammed are not meant to inherit his power, cuz when he died, they were busy with his body, while others are busy inheriting his power and continue the power structure going on which is the message of Islam.

When you desperately try to make history fits your expectations, it sounds lucrative to me indeed.

We have one of the most influential figures in the history of the world by far, inventing one of the most powerful dogmas, and history showed us that most powerful men are eligible to inherit his power (SUNNIS), and you guys are crying over why Shiite are also real Muslims? and in your hearts you wish that Sufis represent real Islam, such a huge delusion.

[Mesopotamian]

23 hours ago, Seeker531 said:

f he really channelled an entity then there is a huge difference between what Mohamed said during the day and what he's got from this entity because one was the words he got from an external source and the other his interpretation and others maybe just his usually character traits that were recorded and not embodied

 

It is all him, no one has ever proved he borrowed the Quran from elsewhere. Maybe his brain was wired in certain way which enables him to feel possessed. Just take a pill of 100 mg of Modafinil, available in pharmacies, and you will have angels whispers stuff in your ears.

[Gesundheit]

2 hours ago, Mesopotamian said:

It is all him, no one has ever proved he borrowed the Quran from elsewhere.

A lot of the Quran is borrowed from Christianity. His brother in law (first wife's cousin) was a saint and he taught him everything. When that guy died, Mohammad had trouble receiving insights and revelations.

12 minutes ago, louhad said:

You are demonstrating insane levels of projection and lack of self-awareness. 

???

[Mesopotamian]

20 minutes ago, louhad said:

You are demonstrating insane levels of projection and lack of self-awareness. 

I didn't mean to say lucrative by the way, i meant ludicrous

----------

7 minutes ago, Gesundheit said:

A lot of the Quran is borrowed from Christianity. His brother in law (first wife's cousin) was a saint and he taught him everything. When that guy died, Mohammad had trouble receiving insights and revelations.

These are rumors, and he might received some knowledge, but the Quran itself, it is Muhammed ho devised it himself, he truly believed that someone is whispering it in his ears or an angel appears before him whom only him can see. Why do you have a problem with entertaining his claims?

You're trying to recite the conspiracy theory widely available on mainstream. We here on Actualized.org are supposed to be better, at least you have to entertain that Muhammed was truthful in his experiences. Revelation stopped could be because he was troubled and wasn't able to get to the same mental state he used to access before his brother in law's death took place.

Edited January 28, 2021 by Mesopotamian