Religious Misunderstandings

[TLK]

There are so many misunderstandings out there. Some are just myths or rumors and stay that way, some actually resulted in faction divisions. In later cases, its like what is “FAITH” for me is a “MYTH” for another Muslim.

Yes, Neil Armstrong hearing Azaan when he landed on moon and becoming Muslim is a rumor but some believe in it , in any case it does not divide Muslims into two sects.

But whether Prophet is Alimul-Ghaib or not actually is one of the major debate that divided Muslims into 2 big groups in sub-continent.

One group says that only Allah is alimul ghaib and considering prophet Alimul Ghaib is a form of shirk

another one believes that there was some kind of Hotline between Allah and Prophet and thus prophet knew everything whether Zahir or Gha’eb (obvious or hidden.). They think that thinking otherwise is disrespect to Prophet and a doubt on his Risaalat.

Now cause Tauheed and Risaalat; believe on both at the same time is the basic pre-req of being muslim, each group calls the other group kaafir for not following one pre-req or the other.

Maybe Unity is the answer .. but does that mean to give some and take some and meet somehwere in the middle. Does Islam allow that flexibility in the name of unity?

I dont want to start any thread that would disrespct anyone here so please avoid that.

[Niksik]

Re: Religious Misunderstandings

This is a hard question.

[diwana]

Re: Religious Misunderstandings

Extremism comes in all forms and shapes.

Things which really matter to mankind at large and religious doctrines which are useful need to be followed.

Many people just like to keep their business of twisting people's mind bring these kind of arguments in religion and ultimate result is division of people.

This happens in every religion by the way. We may not be aware of the kind of disliking each other in other religions since they are not so obvious to us or not talked about in media.

The question weather religion promotes flexibility to allow unity can only be answered in the context of what really is the reason for division.

If division is based on basic teachings being completely different then yes religion does not care if people are divided. But if the matter is relatively trivial then yes unity is required. In this case religion itself is quiet but people need to use common sense which is not so common.

Another point is that for the sake of unity, even muslims and non-muslims came in to common gound in Medina to fight against people from Mekkah.

[TLK]

Re: Religious Misunderstandings

last para is good point .. but one before that

[QUOTE]

If division is based on basic teachings being completely different then yes religion does not care if people are divided. But if the matter is relatively trivial then yes unity is required. In this case religion itself is quiet but people need to use common sense which is not so common.
[/QUOTE]

whether matter is trivial or basic; is not that somewhat subjective? You can always, by using logic, make a trivial matter very basic and otherwise ..

[njgal]

Re: Religious Misunderstandings

yes - Islam does gives the flexibility in the name of unity.

There are not many "yes" or "no" answers in the Quran or hadith to most problems that face the islamic society today. Interperation can vary.

In my opinion - anyone who read the "kalma" is muslim and we should consider them as such. Now is he/she a good muslim, particing muslim, shia muslim, someone who does and does not wear hijab is irrelevant.

That is for Allah to decide whether his/her iman was true or not.

[TLK]

@njgal

yes - Islam does gives the flexibility in the name of unity.

There are not many "yes" or "no" answers in the Quran or hadith to most problems that face the islamic society today. Interperation can vary.

In my opinion - **anyone who read the "kalma" is muslim **and we should consider them as such. Now is he/she a good muslim, particing muslim, shia muslim, someone who does and does not wear hijab is irrelevant.

That is for Allah to decide whether his/her iman was true or not.

very good answer ng .. but in the above example that I gave, the debate is on Kalima itself, One group says that you are violating the "Lailaha illal lah" part, the other saying that you are violating "mohammad ur rasool allah" part

[njgal]

Re: Religious Misunderstandings

In my opinion - once you "SAY" the kalma you are muslim. I'll let the judgeing the voilation part to Allah

I have not come across someone who just read one half of the kalima. (yet)

[TLK]

@njgal

In my opinion - once you "SAY" the kalma you are muslim. I'll let the judgeing the voilation part to Allah

I have not come across someone who just read one half of the kalima. (yet)

No they read the full kalima and I know that both read it with full belief in what they are reciting ..

I guess you brought up a good perspective ..

[njgal]

Re: Religious Misunderstandings

You had asked about unity and flexibility and that's just my opinion.

I am sure most religious scholars might not agree with me but you can use my view point for unity.

[psyah]

@TLK

There are so many misunderstandings out there. Some are just myths or rumors and stay that way, some actually resulted in faction divisions. In later cases, its like what is “FAITH” for me is a “MYTH” for another Muslim.

Yes, Neil Armstrong hearing Azaan when he landed on moon and becoming Muslim is a rumor but some believe in it , in any case it does not divide Muslims into two sects.

But whether Prophet is Alimul-Ghaib or not actually is one of the major debate that divided Muslims into 2 big groups in sub-continent.

One group says that only Allah is alimul ghaib and considering prophet Alimul Ghaib is a form of shirk

another one believes that there was some kind of Hotline between Allah and Prophet and thus prophet knew everything whether Zahir or Gha’eb (obvious or hidden.). They think that thinking otherwise is disrespect to Prophet and a doubt on his Risaalat.

Now cause Tauheed and Risaalat; believe on both at the same time is the basic pre-req of being muslim, each group calls the other group kaafir for not following one pre-req or the other.

Maybe Unity is the answer .. but does that mean to give some and take some and meet somehwere in the middle. Does Islam allow that flexibility in the name of unity?

I dont want to start any thread that would disrespct anyone here so please avoid that.

TLK bro

The most relevant topic of our lives today … JazakAllah Khair.

I was going to open a thread on this but didn’t know where to start. This is a perfect place to say something.

Unifcation is indeed the need of the day, because without it we are going to remain oppressed. I don’t need to explain what I mean by this.

Going to the basis of the hot topic we should see what has happened in the past.

Firstly, we see that sahabah collected the Qur’an, in the view to preserve it, next a few generations later we see collections of hadith and then classifications.

Today another need is begging us to continue this preservation practice. One point is that language and translation is paramount in the times we live in and the second is the derived meanings from the written word.

We see the Qur’an has been standardised, and the hadith, but no effort seems to be in place to classify interpretation and translation. Anyone today can stand up to write a translation or make up an interpretation.

What we need to do is investigate the rules of literal and metaphoric within the constraints of the Arabic language and place likelihoods based on evidence of which way a verse should be taken.

Prior to this we need to collect all the opinions and classify them. We need to state which interpretations have the broadest acceptance and which do not and so on, and for what reasons and so on.

We need to concentrate on our similarities and not our differences to be unified. We can only give nasihah to those who we accept as bretheren and who have accepted us as the same, otherwise they can dismiss us and us them on the grounds of difference. The first step to dialogue is equality.

In the past some people have left some assistance for us, scholars should begin by reopening the topics of the 'aqeedah, Maturidi, 'Ashari and At-Tahawi, etc.

We need to define:

What we can agree on in terminology
What we can agree on in intent behind the terminology
What level of deviation is acceptable within the variations of taken intents

And we need to do so based on evidence and consensus as far as is possible.

Then we need to give each camp a chance to adjust its position if it feels it needs to assume one that is part of a greater slice of the cake.

By doing this we are taking care of the needs of Islamic interpretation today.

[psyah]

Re: Religious Misunderstandings

To me a motto for Muslims is "To Unity we aspire, United we go" ... in that our imperative is to make our lives conform to the requirements of God, but we must do so as an Ummah and not as individuals.

We should accept difference, but desire sameness and we should desire it with enough strength to hold on to what we think is right but also with enough confidence to let go and accept that we could be wrong.

In other words to accept difference should be a temporary position, because our endeavour is to conform although that may be impossible to achieve. We need to pull a little and we need to let ourselves be pulled a little.

[diwana]

@TLK

last para is good point .. but one before that

whether matter is trivial or basic; is not that somewhat subjective? You can always, by using logic, make a trivial matter very basic and otherwise ..

Absolutely. The matter being trivial or basic is subjective.

And that where the problem begins.

Since religion is a compilation of many teachings or do's and donts it becomes vey subjective which one is the real pillars or religious faith and which one are merely inside walls, doors, essential items within or which color the interior or exterior is essential.

Everyone has right to hold his/her opinion.

But what I have gathered is that those issues in Islam which deal with believing in one God and and none equal and the prophet PBUH being the god sent messanger are the real basic issues. This as it is discussed above is Kalmah.

He was alimul-ghaib or not who cares? (trivial) I really don't care or want to spend time on it on personal basis. Does that matter to anyone except those who want to find some issues to keep their business going?

Acording to the religious teachings he did see Alam-ul-Ghaib via Mairaj event.

As long as we agree that he was a messanger of God and he was sent for a mission with information and advise from God via an angel. (Basic)

After that Quranic do's and donts.

Lastly the sunnah which really included the do's and donts clearly and repeatedly advised.

Everyone would agree to that I hope.

Anything after these, specially man-made additons to these are trivial.

I know I have simplified these thoughts but afterall, for unity that should be enough.

[diwana]

Re: Religious Misunderstandings

I need to add few more thoughts.

Unity is not similarity. If there was similarity then there would not be a need of unity.

Tolerance for unity is like water for life.

[psyah]

@diwana

I need to add few more thoughts.

Unity is not similarity. If there was similarity then there would not be a need of unity.

Tolerance for unity is like water for life.

Peace diwana

The political position of unity is as you say it is, that it is the collective movement despite difference of perspective.

I see this as the required starting point and nothing more than this is required, but our intents should be more than tolerance, rather we should accept each other on difference and want to be the same.

to tolerate is better than to disown
to accept is better than to tolerate
to desire sameness is better than acceptance provided it does not come under any form of oppression or covert manipulation.

Note: when I write Unity with a capital 'U' I mean it as an Attribute of God and not the political position of unity with people.

[diwana]

@psyah

Peace diwana

The political position of unity is as you say it is, that it is the collective movement despite difference of perspective.

I see this as the required starting point and nothing more than this is required, but our intents should be more than tolerance, rather we should accept each other on difference and want to be the same.

to tolerate is better than to disown to accept is better than to tolerate to desire sameness is better than acceptance provided it does not come under any form of oppression or covert manipulation.

Note: when I write Unity with a capital 'U' I mean it as an Attribute of God and not the political position of unity with people.

Peace Psyah!

First: The question of thread as I understand is about unity with people and flexibility among people's mind as per religious teachings. Not the **Unity **you mentioned. So I do not know if and why we need to discuss this.

Second: While I agree with *red sentences **of yours as a general statement but I, with all respects to your opinion do not agree with your position as described in **green part of the sentence.
*
*Why should one become same as other person to have unity???? *

I really have problem with green part. That is like if someone wants to pray three times based on Quranic verses alone (other person's view, right or wrong) I should pray three times too in order to be united? Just one example.

Please explain your point of view since I am not sure if green part of your post is valid at all.

Blue part of your post:

Tolerance is all that is required for unity.

Acceptance of difference I can understand but acceptance of different act is not required.

One does not need acceptance for unity and certainly not possible for everyone to be same.

[psyah]

Peace diwana

I really was only talking about the same thing.

You said:

@diwana

Tolerance is all that is required for unity.

Acceptance of difference I can understand but acceptance of different act is not required.

One does not need acceptance for unity and certainly not possible for everyone to be same.

The post that you replied to agrees with this perhaps you didn't see it. Here it is again.

@psyah

Peace diwana

The political position of unity is as you say it is, that it is the collective movement despite difference of perspective.

I see this as the required starting point and nothing more than this is required,

However, I was talking on another level when I made this statement

@psyah

but our intents should be more than tolerance, rather we should accept each other on difference and want to be the same.

To tolerate others means that our biases make us dislike others but we learn to rise above those biases. However, to accept them is to love them or have love for them. When I used the word accept I meant it in the sense of being Muslims or atleast as honest people who are trying to find the truth like ourselves.

The level higher than acceptance of others is that a secret wish exists for those who we love that either they become like us or we become like them in order for even greater unity, this is not required, but it is a perspective that we inherently desire for those who we love.

You asked:

@diwana

First: The question of thread as I understand is about unity with people and flexibility among people's mind as per religious teachings. Not the **Unity **you mentioned. So I do not know if and why we need to discuss this.

I was merely clarifying my previous post which included a motto "To Unity we aspire, United we go" And we don't need to discuss it. I mentioned in my note so I was not misunderstood.

So to summarise you asked:

@diwana

*Why should one become same as other person to have unity???? *

I really have problem with green part. That is like if someone wants to pray three times based on Quranic verses alone (other person's view, right or wrong) I should pray three times too in order to be united? Just one example.

Please explain your point of view since I am not sure if green part of your post is valid at all.

To be like is a hidden desire in us all.

The red part is not what I am saying. I am not saying that rather what I am saying is the well known Qur'anic verse which is come to common terms, which is to identify the areas where we are the same and if need be work out a way where differences can be reconciled and if they can't then to accept the difference in trust and respect for one another.

So if one person wants to pray only 3 times a day and we see that 5 is necessary what we do is at least acknolwedge that prayer is considered by the 3 times a day people. Then to work out how to proceed. Likewise they do the same for us. Eventually we should only DESIRE that either one party conforms to the other or there is a compromise between the two but only if the goods outweigh the bads. Otherwise to at least as a last resort after trying nicely to be the same to accept each other for the differences.

[diwana]

@psyah

Peace diwana

I really was only talking about the same thing.

You said:

The post that you replied to agrees with this perhaps you didn't see it. Here it is again.

However, I was talking on another level when I made this statement

To tolerate others means that our biases make us dislike others but we learn to rise above those biases. However, to accept them is to love them or have love for them. When I used the word accept I meant it in the sense of being Muslims or atleast as honest people who are trying to find the truth like ourselves.

The level higher than acceptance of others is that a secret wish exists for those who we love that either they become like us or we become like them in order for even greater unity, this is not required, but it is a perspective that we inherently desire for those who we love.

You asked:

I was merely clarifying my previous post which included a motto "To Unity we aspire, United we go" And we don't need to discuss it. I mentioned in my note so I was not misunderstood.

So to summarise you asked:

To be like is a hidden desire in us all.

The red part is not what I am saying. I am not saying that rather what I am saying is the well known Qur'anic verse which is come to common terms, which is to identify the areas where we are the same and if need be work out a way where differences can be reconciled and if they can't then to accept the difference in trust and respect for one another.

So if one person wants to pray only 3 times a day and we see that 5 is necessary what we do is at least acknolwedge that prayer is considered by the 3 times a day people. Then to work out how to proceed. Likewise they do the same for us. Eventually we should only DESIRE that either one party conforms to the other or there is a compromise between the two but only if the goods outweigh the bads. Otherwise to at least as a last resort after trying nicely to be the same to accept each other for the differences.

Peace Psyah!

I do not want to make this thread of misunderstanding religion to misunderstanding each other.

The parts of your post you posted again I absolute agreed to hence did not discuss further. I did see your point.

The part I did not agree with you have explained.

I just wish (pun intended) that this secret wish stays secret or wishing for people to be same always stay as a peaceful act.

Billions of people on this earth have different mindset and even those who claim to have same faith.

Tolerance as I understand is being able to acknowledge the differences and accepting the differences, not necessarily accept the different act or become same as other person.

Tolerance also does not mean "I really want to kill this person but oh well I would just tolerate!!":)

So I am glad we agree that tolerance becomes part of everyone's thinking and people get unified.

[MANIAC24]

Re: Religious Misunderstandings

its really amazing that neil armstrong heard azan when he was on the moon many miles away from earth..subhanallah

[TLK]

Re: Religious Misunderstandings

Diwana and Psyah, I see that you guys have a good discussion going on .. I need to read it poperly, I will and then add my thoughts on that

[PakiAmerican]

@TLK

There are so many misunderstandings out there. Some are just myths or rumors and stay that way, some actually resulted in faction divisions. In later cases, its like what is "FAITH" for me is a "MYTH" for another Muslim.

Yes, Neil Armstrong hearing Azaan when he landed on moon and becoming Muslim is a rumor but some believe in it , in any case it does not divide Muslims into two sects.

But whether Prophet is Alimul-Ghaib or not actually is one of the major debate that divided Muslims into 2 big groups in sub-continent.

One group says that only Allah is alimul ghaib and considering prophet Alimul Ghaib is a form of shirk

another one believes that there was some kind of Hotline between Allah and Prophet and thus prophet knew everything whether Zahir or Gha'eb (obvious or hidden.). They think that thinking otherwise is disrespect to Prophet and a doubt on his Risaalat.

Now cause Tauheed and Risaalat; believe on both at the same time is the basic pre-req of being muslim, each group calls the other group kaafir for not following one pre-req or the other.

Maybe Unity is the answer .. but does that mean to give some and take some and meet somehwere in the middle. Does Islam allow that flexibility in the name of unity?

I dont want to start any thread that would disrespct anyone here so please avoid that.

I apologize for my ignorance, but who says 'Prophet is Alimul-Ghaib' ? which group ? I think you misunderstood this for something else. seriously, I don't think any sect (even Ahmadis don't say that Mirza Saab was Alimul-Ghaib) of Islam beleives this. Would you like to elaborate on this and also what is the source of your information?