Religion Discussion | Read the OP before posting

[shamans]

As far as I know it got removed from youtube. It was available on another platform but was removed from there too. I don't know but maybe google etc may show it from someone's social media account. I used to have it but not anymore.


The likes of Noman Ali Khan and a few others don't hold as much sway as MM did/does as they wouldn't fall into scholar territory. They would be "dahis" (sp) who give dawah and have found a niche. I don't see them being much more than social media personalities who have done alright from it.

Yasir Qadhi is a strange one on that he was really good for a while. But now his detractors don't do so out of a sense of him being western orientated but more on what he says and it having very little to no basis, in Islam, in some of his stances or comments. Bit like what I said about MM.

If I can use Harun Yahya (adnan okter)as an extreme example. In my early forays into Islam I read and listened.to a lot of his stuff. And many people I knew did. He was western orientated and was at one time very good on certain topics. But he has had a proper meltdown since 9/11. Changing some of his stances to establishing what was called a cult now being accused of sex abuse and fraud etc.

Obviously that's an extreme example but that is what I meant earlier when I said some works by certain people were really good but situations and time has made them no no's

Honestly I find most of his detractors to be the old school form of preachers threatened by their standing as one. What has he said that has no basis? You can disagree but the man has hour long lectures explaining whatever he believes. I don't agree with plenty he says either but his detractors imo are the sort holding Islam in the dark ages.

 

[Roane]

Honestly I find most of his detractors to be the old school form of preachers threatened by their standing as one. What has he said that has no basis? You can disagree but the man has hour long lectures explaining whatever he believes. I don't agree with plenty he says either but his detractors imo are the sort holding Islam in the dark ages.

I suppose there will always be elements of certain detractors doing so for reasons that are personal to them or their sect/cult. So for example his complete u turn on saudi salafis would obviously annoy saudi salafis.

However in the main the issue for many muslims would be "whatever he believes" has to be within the general principles of Islam. So for me some of his rewriting on maturidis and asharis goes against what is accepted in Islam because it fits his current narrative.

A good example to explain what I mean would be the Nation of Islam. Orthodox muslims would always have an issue with them. Not out of a "holding Islam in the dark ages" notion but simply because Muhammad being the last messenger is a fundamental in the core belief of Islam. So to say Elijah Mohammed is a prophet will never be accepted.

Basically you have many groups and sects within Islam who disagree on certain issues, but there are core principles that you simply can't disagree on. Well you can but then can't call it Islam.

 

[Foxbatt]

Good view Roane. I had an interesting conversation with a Professor. I would say his knowledge is a lot more than most of these Imams I see on youtube or TV. He is muslim by the way.
I asked him about the " eye for an eye" issue. His reply was very reasonable.
He said in those days there was a lot of raiding by tribes against other tribes and eventually sometimes people lost their lives.
The injured tribe obviously wants revenge and would go and kill a couple for the lost life. So he said it's the maximum retribution you can take is one for one what you lost. Not more.
I thought it was a reasonable answer. There is a Canadian Professor who teaches contemporary religion at San Diego University who seems to be good.

 

[Roane]

Good view Roane. I had an interesting conversation with a Professor. I would say his knowledge is a lot more than most of these Imams I see on youtube or TV. He is muslim by the way.
I asked him about the " eye for an eye" issue. His reply was very reasonable.
He said in those days there was a lot of raiding by tribes against other tribes and eventually sometimes people lost their lives.
The injured tribe obviously wants revenge and would go and kill a couple for the lost life. So he said it's the maximum retribution you can take is one for one what you lost. Not more.
I thought it was a reasonable answer. There is a Canadian Professor who teaches contemporary religion at San Diego University who seems to be good.

I think it was Ghandi who said an eye for an eye makes everyone blind or to that effect.

Now when I see arguments, and lets be honest here, against religion certain quotes are taken and used almost ad nauseum whilst, for me anyway, showing gross misunderstanding.

The eye for eye quite in the quran needs to be read not in isolation but the verses before and after, and I may add not just that bit but the complete verse. Then it needs to be understood from how it was explained and practised at the time.

The professor you mention is right that these verses were about setting limits in acts of revenge etc. But when looked at in detail they actually go against what the Ghandi quite is saying. If anything before these verses there were vendettas and feuds going on and on and that was what would have made "everyone blind". I'm reminded of the scene in Godfather where michael asks where the men are and is told mostly dead from feuds etc.

When looked at closely the law itself is not for the individual to reenact or carry out, it's more for the judge/court to not exceed limits in terms of punishment.

 

[shamans]

I suppose there will always be elements of certain detractors doing so for reasons that are personal to them or their sect/cult. So for example his complete u turn on saudi salafis would obviously annoy saudi salafis.

However in the main the issue for many muslims would be "whatever he believes" has to be within the general principles of Islam. So for me some of his rewriting on maturidis and asharis goes against what is accepted in Islam because it fits his current narrative.

A good example to explain what I mean would be the Nation of Islam. Orthodox muslims would always have an issue with them. Not out of a "holding Islam in the dark ages" notion but simply because Muhammad being the last messenger is a fundamental in the core belief of Islam. So to say Elijah Mohammed is a prophet will never be accepted.

Basically you have many groups and sects within Islam who disagree on certain issues, but there are core principles that you simply can't disagree on. Well you can but then can't call it Islam.

I find it very disingenuous to compare YQ to nation of Islam. What exactly did he say that was blatant re-writing? Again I don't agree with a lot of what he says but some people go really far to negate him just so traditional beliefs are upheld.

 

[Roane]

I find it very disingenuous to compare YQ to nation of Islam. What exactly did he say that was blatant re-writing? Again I don't agree with a lot of what he says but some people go really far to negate him just so traditional beliefs are upheld.

Where was the comparison???

I used NOI to explain my point.

But now you mention it there are similarities in his changed stance.

And where you say traditional beliefs, which I thought I had explained, I am saying fundamental beliefs.

You do know he was salafis trained himself but now goes completely against that?

 

[shamans]

Where was the comparison???

I used NOI to explain my point.

But now you mention it there are similarities in his changed stance.

And where you say traditional beliefs, which I thought I had explained, I am saying fundamental beliefs.

You do know he was salafis trained himself but now goes completely against that?

Okay you weren't comparing, I thought you were (but now you are?) I'm not sure where you stand but to me I think both can't be compared (even if you didn't do it I'm just saying it).

And yeah I know that. I think that makes him more credible for me that he was able to see how he was wrong about the whole salafism thing.

 

[Roane]

Okay you weren't comparing, I thought you were (but now you are?) I'm not sure where you stand but to me I think both can't be compared (even if you didn't do it I'm just saying it).

And yeah I know that. I think that makes him more credible for me that he was able to see how he was wrong about the whole salafism thing.

No I wasn't comparing I clearly said it was an example to explain what I mean.

I am now saying there are similarities, after your response . Its just a progression of the discussion in my view.

And yes there are similarities/or a comparison. This links into his change on salafism (which I personally think is more based on the environment since 9/11 and him wanting to stay relevant and out of any negative publicity over anything else).

What j mean here is he uses the, in my words, whole Islam according to the society you live in. Which on the face of it makes sense. However not when you get into the fundamentals. So NOI making Islam specific to the black community is fair enough but the fundamental of no new messenger negates Islam. Similarly YQ saying we need Islam relevant to society in USA is fair enough but then to go on and say we need to change some of it's fundamentals goes outside the message of Islam and basically any religion. In Islam the basic is "cling to the rope of Allah even if you are one" not follow the society to fit in.

Religion as a concept took a stance against society. Form being monotheistic over polytheistic, to basic beliefs of pilgrimages to fasting etc. You don't pick and choose. Fasting is for wherever you are and not a case of well I'm in usa so no one fasts so I don't either. I mean you can but then you can't claim to be Muslim too.

And before you ask I don't adhere or link to the Salafis creed.

 

[shamans]

No I wasn't comparing I clearly said it was an example to explain what I mean.

I am now saying there are similarities, after your response . Its just a progression of the discussion in my view.

And yes there are similarities/or a comparison. This links into his change on salafism (which I personally think is more based on the environment since 9/11 and him wanting to stay relevant and out of any negative publicity over anything else).

What j mean here is he uses the, in my words, whole Islam according to the society you live in. Which on the face of it makes sense. However not when you get into the fundamentals. So NOI making Islam specific to the black community is fair enough but the fundamental of no new messenger negates Islam. Similarly YQ saying we need Islam relevant to society in USA is fair enough but then to go on and say we need to change some of it's fundamentals goes outside the message of Islam and basically any religion. In Islam the basic is "cling to the rope of Allah even if you are one" not follow the society to fit in.

Religion as a concept took a stance against society. Form being monotheistic over polytheistic, to basic beliefs of pilgrimages to fasting etc. You don't pick and choose. Fasting is for wherever you are and not a case of well I'm in usa so no one fasts so I don't either. I mean you can but then you can't claim to be Muslim too.

And before you ask I don't adhere or link to the Salafis creed.

But specifically, which fundamental belief is he changing? I know your fasting example is just an example but something like that does not apply to YQ.

He has a different opinion about stuff like gog magog which has nothing to do with fundamentals of Islam. If anything YQ does not sugar coat facts and aspects of Islam that make it difficult to align with modern western culture as well.

Also his distancing from Salafism does not have to do with just the times but the fact he studied/changed quite a bit in Yale.

 

[Roane]

But specifically, which fundamental belief is he changing? I know your fasting example is just an example but something like that does not apply to YQ.

He has a different opinion about stuff like gog magog which has nothing to do with fundamentals of Islam. If anything YQ does not sugar coat facts and aspects of Islam that make it difficult to align with modern western culture as well.

Also his distancing from Salafism does not have to do with just the times but the fact he studied/changed quite a bit in Yale.

I already told you earlier he went from salafism to maturidi/ ashari. He himself has said that in responses online etc.

The fundamentals of Islam or usool deen are for muslims text based, maturidis (being more a philosophical type) use rational evidence over textual evidence.

This is why I have been using the NOI and the fasting as examples.

The gog magog issue can very much be about the fundamentals of Islam, in that you have the textual evidences that scholars use and the rational arguments some use. Textual wins and anyone who says otherwise has deviated

 

[shamans]

I already told you earlier he went from salafism to maturidi/ ashari. He himself has said that in responses online etc.

The fundamentals of Islam or usool deen are for muslims text based, maturidis (being more a philosophical type) use rational evidence over textual evidence.

This is why I have been using the NOI and the fasting as examples.

The gog magog issue can very much be about the fundamentals of Islam, in that you have the textual evidences that scholars use and the rational arguments some use. Textual wins and anyone who says otherwise has deviated

Don't get offended but you have a very narrow view of what is fundamental. Even by numbers this is not necessarily true.

 

[Roane]

Don't get offended but you have a very narrow view of what is fundamental. Even by numbers this is not necessarily true.

Explain.

And don't worry I'm not easily offended.

 

[2cents]

Some good stuff on this channel - Religious Studies Project

 

[2cents]

Some Ireland based posters on here might find this short program on the Baha’i New Year in Ireland interesting - https://www.rte.ie/player/movie/naw-ruz-a-song-of-hope/188879912151

 

[WI_Red]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

So this was it for me. The final straw. A minor event when it comes to the shit the Catholic Church has done, but anything that breaks needs that final pressure to do so. I have been struggling for a decade with my membership in the Catholic Church. That it was a struggle is an awesome testimony to the priest who was our pastor in Alabama. The Church leadership in America is rotten to its very core. The Bishops, in their expensive finery act as if they are Gods gift to parishioners instead of their servants in faith. They have become ever more political, taking up the side of Trump and the GOP in alarming numbers. The Church, by this vote, now publicly proclaims that supporting the right to chose, which is the law of the land, is more evil than supporting capital punishment, or brutality, or limiting healthcare. All positions the Church has endorsed by their silence the last 4 years.

And of course none of the above even touches on the abomination that was/is the rape of children by priests and the cover ups that followed. I am 100% sure that multiple bishops who voted for withholding communion have raped children, and even more participated in the cover up.

I am done. I am still Christian, but now just one without a church. I don’t even think I want one.

 

[2cents]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[2cents]

Portuguese synagogue in Amsterdam holding onto a centuries-old grudge in charming style:

 

[2cents]

 

[Penna]

The Pope has cornered the market for us. It makes sense, because the question was specifically about Catholicism and not Christianity per se.

 

[Dumbstar]

I am genuinely shocked at how little there is mention of 'God'/'gods' in any of the religions. Sure Jesus is mentioned but that's obviously the person rather than the supernatural.

Almost indicative of how 'we' hold our beliefs in the modern day. It's a label.

Edit: ah, it says person in the question. Doh! And relief.

 

[Red Dreams]

I am genuinely shocked at how little there is mention of 'God'/'gods' in any of the religions. Sure Jesus is mentioned but that's obviously the person rather than the supernatural.

Almost indicative of how 'we' hold our beliefs in the modern day. It's a label.

Edit: ah, it says person in the question. Doh! And relief.

Jesus is the Son of God to Christians.

 

[2cents]

Hajj time is here, the first “post-Covid” Hajj. The Saudis have limited the pilgrimage to 1 million this year. Here’s a live stream from the Masjid al-Haram in Mecca:


This thread is a good read for anyone interested:

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

(edit): also here’s a re-post of Ali Shariati on the Hajj -http://www.shariati.com/english/hajj/hajj2.html

 

[2cents]

Another nice thread:

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[The Corinthian]

Pope dissolves Knights of Malta leadership, issues new constitution


VATICAN CITY, Sept 3 (Reuters) - Pope Francis on Saturday dissolved the leadership of the Knights of Malta, the global Catholic religious order and humanitarian group, and installed a provisional government ahead of the election of a new Grand Master.

The change, which the pope issued in a decree, came after five years of often acrimonious debate within the order and between some top members of the old guard and the Vatican over a new constitution that some feared would weaken its sovereignty.


Pope dissolves Knights of Malta leadership, issues new constitution | Reuters

 

[2cents]

Your 2023 Hajj live stream:

 

[buchansleftleg]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

So this was it for me. The final straw. A minor event when it comes to the shit the Catholic Church has done, but anything that breaks needs that final pressure to do so. I have been struggling for a decade with my membership in the Catholic Church. That it was a struggle is an awesome testimony to the priest who was our pastor in Alabama. The Church leadership in America is rotten to its very core. The Bishops, in their expensive finery act as if they are Gods gift to parishioners instead of their servants in faith. They have become ever more political, taking up the side of Trump and the GOP in alarming numbers. The Church, by this vote, now publicly proclaims that supporting the right to chose, which is the law of the land, is more evil than supporting capital punishment, or brutality, or limiting healthcare. All positions the Church has endorsed by their silence the last 4 years.

And of course none of the above even touches on the abomination that was/is the rape of children by priests and the cover ups that followed. I am 100% sure that multiple bishops who voted for withholding communion have raped children, and even more participated in the cover up.

I am done. I am still Christian, but now just one without a church. I don’t even think I want one.

I can relate to this so much. For me one of the defining moments was when I returned home from University and with my mum and Dad we went to a mass in Liverpool. A couple of weeks earlier Tony Bland, the 96th victim of Hillsborough had finally died after a lengthy court case around removal of treatment (artificial feeding tube).

When it came time for the Priest to do his homily, instead he read out a letter from the catholic bishop, Derek Worlock. Whilst this letter offered some superficial sympathy to his family (who would have been sat in some other Liverpool church that weekend) he went on to explain, at length, how morally repugnant the ruling was, that God was the only one who could make life and death decisions and that the family should have fought against it more and were misguided in accepting it.

I can remember feeling increasing anger and a few people walked out of the church at what was said. I felt awful for not shouting this rubbish down. After the mass I told my Mum and dad that I wouldn't be going to church again after that homily, explaining that I'd been to University with people who had been there and it was the most unchristian thing ever to write a letter like that knowing that the family going through grief would hear it.

As a United fan I had just felt appalled at the Hillsborough disaster and the subsequent revelations we have heard about policing and cover ups. I find any Hillsborough chanting totally disgusting and an insult to our own tragic history.

So for many years I didn't go to church until my daughter was born and the local catholic church was the best in the area....so yes I was a hypocrite and went to "enough" masses to qualify her for the school...I even took communion again for the first time in years. The priest at the church seemed an OK guy, was from the Servite order and seemed a bit more modern.

We were then told he was off sick...there were rumours he was VERY seriously ill and some even said he was receiving palliative / Hospice care. The whole church and school felt awful about this...until we read the newspapers one night and found out he wasn't sick at all...He was being tried for having had a relationship with someone he had effectively groomed since she was 15 years old. He'd proceeded to have an on/off relationship with this woman for decades until she went for some therapy and this all came to light and hit the newspapers, including his "apology" letter to her.

Now fair play, the school had removed him as a governor as soon as this came to light and had respected confidentiality...but the fact that the church had us all praying for him as being "sick" was the final, final straw for me. I've had to attend some catholic functions that my daughter attends, but I won't pray in that Church any more and I have no respect left for the organisation.

 

[Penna]

David Sheppard was a Church of England bishop (I assume you knew that). I'm not sure why a priest in a Catholic church would be reading anything from an Anglican bishop.

 

[buchansleftleg]

David Sheppard was a Church of England bishop (I assume you knew that). I'm not sure why a priest in a Catholic church would be reading anything from an Anglican bishop.

yes you're right it was Derek Worlock, I got the names mixed up as both retired shortly afterwards

 

[2cents]

Brief outline of the Hajj rituals for anyone unfamiliar with what is happening in Mecca starting today (from this book):

 

[2cents]

Beautiful: