Who are the Salafis?

Announcements Posted on
TSR looking different to you this week? Find out why here. 02-12-2016
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Zamestaneh)
    Basically you don't have a legitmate counter-point... If someone came on the ISOC and claimed God was Jesus but said they were Muslim, we wouldn't accept that, so similarly if anyone wishes to propogate their unIslamic beliefs and call it Islam and claim they are Muslim, then they are not allowed to do so - that is how the Islamic Society works both on here and at any university in the UK.
    Laughable. I just felt it wasn't worth replying as I'm sure in the past you have told me you don't read my posts. But okay, I shall type out a response as I have no trouble replying to your post.

    The issue is that some groups we deny are Muslim to start with e.g. Alewwi, Ahamadiyyah
    And there we start with sectarianism straight away. If you want to debate the validity of these groups and their interpretation of Islam, you can take that to the debate society, but the I-Soc is meant to function as an inclusive society for all Muslim groups. A society is not inclusive if it says "we accept all Muslims, except you, you, you, you and you." That is not inclusive. Essentially, you are saying, "the only people who may post in this society are the ones I approve of." Why should you dictate who can or cannot post in the society? What gives you the right to dictate this?

    so it's not like they are targeted Muslim minority groups, but you insist that the ISOC should allow them to propogate their beliefs on the thread
    If in the hopes of achieving a less sectarian society, the I-Soc asked for all people discussing topics that cause or lead to debate to refrain from discussing those topics, I think that would be fair. But I believe discussion would have to take place between the different groups and the CT first. The less contention and less arguing there is within the society, the more accessible it becomes. Really the society should be able to offer resources to members of different sects without causing sectarian arguments. However, as there are some extreme members within the society, this sort of inter-sect support could never work without stirring up hatred. .

    However, this is not the stance you wish to take. You wish to be able to propagate and enforce your beliefs on the society, effectively turning the society into a Sunni Society.

    the ISOC says it's inclusive and allows anyone to post, but that doesn't mean that one can post about anything and everything - it has to be at least somewhat acceptable to the beliefs of Muslims as understood by the majority.
    An inclusive society should not be dictated merely by the majority. This is effectively why the society is being run almost as a Sunni society.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Epicurean)
    Laughable. I just felt it wasn't worth replying as I'm sure in the past you have told me you don't read my posts. But okay, I shall type out a response as I have no trouble replying to your post.

    And there we start with sectarianism straight away. If you want to debate the validity of these groups and their interpretation of Islam, you can take that to the debate society, but the I-Soc is meant to function as an inclusive society for all Muslim groups. A society is not inclusive if it says "we accept all Muslims, except you, you, you, you and you." That is not inclusive. Essentially, you are saying, "the only people who may post in this society are the ones I approve of." Why should you dictate who can or cannot post in the society? What gives you the right to dictate this?
    It appears you do not understand my point - I was making the case that it doesn't matter what background one is from, they *can* post on the society, but what they choose to post is what is subject to condition.

    Furthermore, I should not have to debate it in the Debate section as their legitimacy is not hinged upon how well I argue the point, rather scholars from both Shia and Sunni (who represent around 99% of the population of people who claim to be Muslims globally) unanimously agree these groups are Muslim as they contradict the very foundational beliefs of Muslims.
    Again I ask: should people be allowed to claim Jesus is God on the ISOC and others are expected to consider him a Muslim and allow him to continue to post content like that on the ISOC? If you answer yes, then there is nothing more to say to you because you are clearly trying to push your agenda no matter how weak your point is; if you answer no, then we are in agreement.

    If in the hopes of achieving a less sectarian society, the I-Soc asked for all people discussing topics that cause or lead to debate to refrain from discussing those topics, I think that would be fair. But I believe discussion would have to take place between the different groups and the CT first. The less contention and less arguing there is within the society, the more accessible it becomes. Really the society should be able to offer resources to members of different sects without causing sectarian arguments. However, as there are some extreme members within the society, this sort of inter-sect support could never work without stirring up hatred
    When things do become too argumentative and the debate is not short, then indeed we already take it to other threads.

    The ISOC functions well with the status quo.

    However, this is not the stance you wish to take. You wish to be able to propagate and enforce your beliefs on the society, effectively turning the society into a Sunni Society
    We do not stop Shia from posting their resources or beliefs; in the OP, we only included books which represent the majority of Muslims (and one cannot argue that they are from just a Salafi perspective since the books are acceptable to non-Salafis too as many are just biographical works and other classical books). If we were to include both Sunni and Shia books, that would confuse lay Muslims and non-Muslims alike which is not conducive to educating people about Islam, and clearing up that mess would cause further 'sectarianism', which you abhor so much, therefore it is necessary in this case to only present the beliefs of the majority; if anyone disagrees with this, they can follow the example of students at universities throughout the UK who formed their own societies, e.g. Ahlul Bayt Society, Ahmadiyyah Society, Alevi Society, etc, but it is not necessary for us to label ourselves as the 'Sunni Society' as we are 85% of the global Muslim population.

    An inclusive society should not be dictated merely by the majority. This is effectively why the society is being run almost as a Sunni society.
    If 52% of the population can vote for brexit, ISOC posters who represent 85% of Muslims can run the Islamic society as they see fit lol
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Zamestaneh)
    It appears you do not understand my point - I was making the case that it doesn't matter what background one is from, they *can* post on the society, but what they choose to post is what is subject to condition.
    Subject to Zamestaneh's ruling* And again I ask, who are you to call the shots or make the decisions? TSR rules are TSR rules. This is fundamentally about the use of sectarian language. The TSR CT have made clear they do not support this.

    Furthermore, I should not have to debate it in the Debate section as their legitimacy is not hinged upon how well I argue the point
    Debates belong outside the society. Simple. I can quote a CT in if you wish, and they can clarify this for you.

    rather scholars from both Shia and Sunni (who represent around 99% of the population of people who claim to be Muslims globally) unanimously agree these groups are Muslim as they contradict the very foundational beliefs of Muslims.
    But this is not a Sunni society. This is not a Shia society. This is an Islamic Society which is supposed to be open to all Muslims. If you want a Sunni society, go create one.

    Again I ask: should people be allowed to claim Jesus is God on the ISOC and others are expected to consider him a Muslim and allow him to continue to post content like that on the ISOC? If you answer yes, then there is nothing more to say to you because you are clearly trying to push your agenda no matter how weak your point is; if you answer no, then we are in agreement.
    It is clear you have an agenda to push here. You will use any absurd justification to close the I-Soc off to people who do not follow your single interpretation of Islam.

    When things do become too argumentative and the debate is not short, then indeed we already take it to other threads.

    The ISOC functions well with the status quo.
    Except, despite CT having clearly stated recently that sectarian comments are not allowed, they have continued. And this is the issue that the I-Soc is failing to address.

    We do not stop Shia from posting their resources or beliefs
    But it shouldn't be a huge problem. Just have separate titles. "Shia resources" and then under the title have Shia resources. Why is this such a huge issue? It is because some people treat this society as a Sunni society.

    therefore it is necessary in this case to only present the beliefs of the majority;
    Why? This is a inter-sect society? Why should it not be inclusive like it claims?

    If 52% of the population can vote for brexit, ISOC posters who represent 85% of Muslims can run the Islamic society as they see fit lol
    Because this isn't a referendum with an agreed outcome (the majority vote wins). This is a society on TSR that operates under TSR rules. As you can see form the CT edit in the OP of the I-Soc, your views are not in agreement with the CT. If you don't like the CT's rules, you can always use another website.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Epicurean)
    Subject to Zamestaneh's ruling* And again I ask, who are you to call the shots or make the decisions? TSR rules are TSR rules. This is fundamentally about the use of sectarian language. The TSR CT have made clear they do not support this
    There are always conditions which govern how we make posts, and some of the conditions are context specific e.g. posting pictures of pork on part of TSR would constitute a valid post, and on others e.g. the ISOC, it would be considered inappropriate, irrelevent, trolling etc. This is fundamentally about your lack of understanding and your aggenda to force Muslims globally to accept the corrupted beliefs of obscure groups in order to slowly corrupt our religion and how we practice and understand it because you want people to accept your view of how Muslims should and shouldn't believe and act and live.

    Debates belong outside the society. Simple. I can quote a CT in if you wish, and they can clarify this for you.
    Read the ISOC rules - short discussions (which could constitute debates) are allowed but if they continue, then they are moved, because naturally the nature of how discussions work is that one person says something and then another person says something else. That is what a discussion is. Sometimes they may agree; sometimes they may not, and in cases where they don't, discussing this disagreement becomes a debate or constitutes correcting someone in an error they have made. But once it turns into a prolonged debate, that is the moment when either both choose to stop or they take it else where. One cannot take the debate elsewhere if the point of disagreement hasn't even been identified yet.

    But this is not a Sunni society. This is not a Shia society. This is an Islamic Society which is supposed to be open to all Muslims. If you want a Sunni society, go create one.
    Islam is a tree with a thick branch (Sunnism) a thinner branch (Shi'ism) and an even smaller banch (Ibaadis). Twigs (subsects) comes off of these two larger branches. If the twigs bear fruit but the point where the twig joins the branch is weak, then the weight of the fruit will cause the twig to snap off and break from the tree, and subsequently that twig is no longer a part of that tree.

    Accept that and move on.

    It is clear you have an agenda to push here. You will use any absurd justification to close the I-Soc off to people who do not follow your single interpretation of Islam.

    I.e. "I cannot address your point, Zamestaneh, soz"

    Except, despite CT having clearly stated recently that sectarian comments are not allowed, they have continued. And this is the issue that the I-Soc is failing to address.
    Give examples of "sectarian comments" on the ISOC.

    But it shouldn't be a huge problem. Just have separate titles. "Shia resources" and then under the title have Shia resources. Why is this such a huge issue? It is because some people treat this society as a Sunni society

    When lay Muslims and non-Muslims come to learn about Islam, they do not come to check the Shia resourses on Islam, they come to learn Islam as understood by the majority of Muslims, and by including these resources, one is giving equal footing to less widely held beliefs - it is exactly the same as having a section on Jewish theology in the Islamic Society i.e. it has little relevence to helping those who want to learn about Islam.



    Why? This is a inter-sect society? Why should it not be inclusive like it claims?
    It is - Shia have posted on the ISOC without being told they are not allowed to post.

    Because this isn't a referendum with an agreed outcome (the majority vote wins). This is a society on TSR that operates under TSR rules. As you can see form the CT edit in the OP of the I-Soc, your views are not in agreement with the CT. If you don't like the CT's rules, you can always use another website.
    The CT edit was referring to being derrogatory and hateful, thus being all inclusive by not selectively being unkind to people from specific religious backgrounds; I haven't done anything derrogatory or hateful, instead only echoing the views of the majority in an acceptable way. If you don't like the CT's rules, I guess you could always reinterpret them - sticking to your strengths, innit
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Zamestaneh)
    There are always conditions which govern how we make posts, and some of the conditions are context specific e.g. posting pictures of pork on part of TSR would constitute a valid post, and on others e.g. the ISOC, it would be considered inappropriate, irrelevent, trolling etc. This is fundamentally about your lack of understanding and your aggenda to force Muslims globally to accept the corrupted beliefs of obscure groups in order to slowly corrupt our religion and how we practice and understand it because you want people to accept your view of how Muslims should and shouldn't believe and act and live.
    No, you are trying to force your sectarianism on the I-Soc. You could quite have easily edited the OP to make it more welcoming, but you refused. It says a lot about you.

    Read the ISOC rules - short discussions (which could constitute debates) are allowed but if they continue, then they are moved, because naturally the nature of how discussions work is that one person says something and then another person says something else. That is what a discussion is. Sometimes they may agree; sometimes they may not, and in cases where they don't, discussing this disagreement becomes a debate or constitutes correcting someone in an error they have made. But once it turns into a prolonged debate, that is the moment when either both choose to stop or they take it else where. One cannot take the debate elsewhere if the point of disagreement hasn't even been identified yet.
    You should read the I-Soc rules, as the edit by CT quite clearly explains why you are in the wrong for your sectarianism comments. And we are talking specifically about debates regarding validity of sects. Follow the conversation please. I said you should take debates regarding sects and their validity outside of the society.

    Islam is a tree with a thick branch (Sunnism) a thinner branch (Shi'ism) and an even smaller banch (Ibaadis). Twigs (subsects) comes off of these two larger branches. If the twigs bear fruit but the point where the twig joins the branch is weak, then the weight of the fruit will cause the twig to snap off and break from the tree, and subsequently that twig is no longer a part of that tree.

    Accept that and move on.
    What a load of drivel. So you have no point to make?



    I.e. "I cannot address your point, Zamestaneh, soz"
    I've address your points. But your need to be puerile sure shows your incapability to debate this topic.

    Give examples of "sectarian comments" on the ISOC
    :facepalm: I said I report the comments. They get deleted. But the reason the CT edited the OP and posted in the I-Soc is because of the issue of sectarian comments. So the CT also see the issue.

    When lay Muslims and non-Muslims come to learn about Islam, they do not come to check the Shia resourses on Islam, they come to learn Islam as understood by the majority of Muslims, and by including these resources, one is giving equal footing to less widely held beliefs - it is exactly the same as having a section on Jewish theology in the Islamic Society i.e. it has little relevence to helping those who want to learn about Islam.
    What a load of rubbish. You really will come up with any trite to defend your bigotry and hatred. There is no proof that you can bring forward that non-Muslims and lay Muslims only want to learn Sunni Islam and not Shia Islam. Rather, you want to force the I-Soc to become an I-Soc which only presents your interpretation of Islam and want every to perceive that to be the single only valid interpretation.

    It is - Shia have posted on the ISOC without being told they are not allowed to post.
    It's not, as evidenced by the sectarian comments and the refusal to edit the OP to make the society more inclusive.

    The CT edit was referring to being derrogatory and hateful, thus being all inclusive by not selectively being unkind to people from specific religious backgrounds; I haven't done anything derrogatory or hateful, instead only echoing the views of the majority in an acceptable way. If you don't like the CT's rules, I guess you could always reinterpret them - sticking to your strengths, innit
    The CT was referring to sectarian comments. I can quote the CT in question into this thread and they will validate what the purpose behind the OP edit was. I can assure you, it had everything to do with sectarian comments.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Epicurean)
    No, you are trying to force your sectarianism on the I-Soc. You could quite have easily edited the OP to make it more welcoming, but you refused. It says a lot about you.



    You should read the I-Soc rules, as the edit by CT quite clearly explains why you are in the wrong for your sectarianism comments. And we are talking specifically about debates regarding validity of sects. Follow the conversation please. I said you should take debates regarding sects and their validity outside of the society.



    What a load of drivel. So you have no point to make?





    I've address your points. But your need to be puerile sure shows your incapability to debate this topic.



    :facepalm: I said I report the comments. They get deleted. But the reason the CT edited the OP and posted in the I-Soc is because of the issue of sectarian comments. So the CT also see the issue.



    What a load of rubbish. You really will come up with any trite to defend your bigotry and hatred. There is no proof that you can bring forward that non-Muslims and lay Muslims only want to learn Sunni Islam and not Shia Islam. Rather, you want to force the I-Soc to become an I-Soc which only presents your interpretation of Islam and want every to perceive that to be the single only valid interpretation.



    It's not, as evidenced by the sectarian comments and the refusal to edit the OP to make the society more inclusive.



    The CT was referring to sectarian comments. I can quote the CT in question into this thread and they will validate what the purpose behind the OP edit was. I can assure you, it had everything to do with sectarian comments.
    There is widespread agreement among the Islamic community that Ahmadis and other sects are not Islam. They directly contradict Islam. Anyone can just say that they are Muslims- that doesn't mean that they are or the wider Islamic community should accept them.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BigTraderBoi)
    There is widespread agreement among the Islamic community that Ahmadis and other sects are not Islam. They directly contradict Islam. Anyone can just say that they are Muslims- that doesn't mean that they are or the wider Islamic community should accept them.
    The I-Soc is an inter-sect society that operates under TSR rules. If you have issues with TSR's rules, you will have to speak to the CT. But the CT have said they do not tolerate inter-sectarian comments within the I-Soc.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Epicurean)
    The I-Soc is an inter-sect society that operates under TSR rules. If you have issues with TSR's rules, you will have to speak to the CT. But the CT have said they do not tolerate inter-sectarian comments within the I-Soc.
    Are you part of these sects yourself? Have you personally felt that they insulted your beliefs?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tawheed)
    Since leaving the salafi-sect, to join the greater body of the ahlus-sunnah wal jamaah group, he has received a lot of hatred, 'refutations', and attacks. Usually,these are carried out by people notorious for their intolerance.
    You could say that, quite justifiably, about anyone who left any sect in Islam. The truth is that Moslems generally seem to be intolerant of people who change their minds, challenge beliefs of other Moslems or abandon the same beliefs they hold themselves. Apostates are often treated abominably, of course, and leaving Islam is actually illegal in some countries.

    This is in sharp contrast to Christians who don't seem to mind people changing their minds about matters of superstition.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BigTraderBoi)
    Are you part of these sects yourself? Have you personally felt that they insulted your beliefs?
    No I'm not. I have seen and reported countless sectarian comments which break the TSR rules. These include names that are derogatory to these individuals. TSR rules state that rule breaking posts should be reported. It is not about whether I am personally offended. Rule breaking posts are rule breaking posts quite simply.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Epicurean)
    No, you are trying to force your sectarianism on the I-Soc. You could quite have easily edited the OP to make it more welcoming, but you refused. It says a lot about you.

    You should read the I-Soc rules, as the edit by CT quite clearly explains why you are in the wrong for your sectarianism comments. And we are talking specifically about debates regarding validity of sects. Follow the conversation please. I said you should take debates regarding sects and their validity outside of the society.

    What a load of drivel. So you have no point to make?





    I've address your points. But your need to be puerile sure shows your incapability to debate this topic.



    :facepalm: I said I report the comments. They get deleted. But the reason the CT edited the OP and posted in the I-Soc is because of the issue of sectarian comments. So the CT also see the issue.



    What a load of rubbish. You really will come up with any trite to defend your bigotry and hatred. There is no proof that you can bring forward that non-Muslims and lay Muslims only want to learn Sunni Islam and not Shia Islam. Rather, you want to force the I-Soc to become an I-Soc which only presents your interpretation of Islam and want every to perceive that to be the single only valid interpretation.



    It's not, as evidenced by the sectarian comments and the refusal to edit the OP to make the society more inclusive.



    The CT was referring to sectarian comments. I can quote the CT in question into this thread and they will validate what the purpose behind the OP edit was. I can assure you, it had everything to do with sectarian comments.
    Sectarianism involves bigotry; I am not bigoted, but then again this is subjective, so there is no solid basis to claim I want to promote 'sectarianism' in the ISOC. I haven't edited the ISOC because it works fine as it is without people like you interfering.

    You do not realise how circular the basis of your point is - there is no debate about the validity of sects in the ISOC because the whole point is that there is a concensus that some groups are not valid sects; the debates only happen because people with agendas like yours try to spark these debates there by going against concensus.

    Again, you haven't addressed the point - this is fundamentally about what defines a 'Muslim'. I am simply highlighting that your approach of saying anyone who wants to call themselves a Muslim can be called a Muslim is stupid because there are basic things which cannot be compromised on without it invalidating one's Islam.

    You have made few valid points for me to debate.

    When they come on the thread, if they want to learn about the Shia-Sunni divide or about Shi'ism in general, they specifically mention that, or they can go to the Ask about Shi'ism thread, otherwise they ask questions and we answer from our perspective as the majority. When people discuss Islam or ciriticise it on TSR, they refer to Sahih Bukhari, Sahih Muslim, Ibn Kathir, Ibn Taymiyyah, the fiqh of the four madhabs etc because that is what they perceive to be Islam; I have never ever seen non-Muslims debate against Islam using Kitabul Kafi, Najul Balagha, other hadith from the Shia Imams etc because they simply do not perceive Shi'ism to be representative of Islam and most probably don't even know what these books are or who the Imams of Shi'ism are.

    Your idea of inclusive does not match up to ours - we just have different standards, I guess.

    I am already trying to clarify the topic of 'sectarianism' with the CT in the AtCT section in order to clarify this situation, so right now that is not necessary.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Zamestaneh)
    Sectarianism involves bigotry; I am not bigoted, but then again this is subjective, so there is no solid basis to claim I want to promote 'sectarianism' in the ISOC. I haven't edited the ISOC because it works fine as it is without people like you interfering.
    I beg to differ there. It clearly isn't working fine when people are given free reign to post sectarian comments. It is something the I-Soc needs to address.

    You do not realise how circular the basis of your point is - there is no debate about the validity of sects in the ISOC because the whole point is that there is a concensus that some groups are not valid sects; the debates only happen because people with agendas like yours try to spark these debates there by going against concensus.
    That is not how TSR operates. We have to follow TSR rules.

    Again, you haven't addressed the point - this is fundamentally about what defines a 'Muslim'. I am simply highlighting that your approach of saying anyone who wants to call themselves a Muslim can be called a Muslim is stupid because there are basic things which cannot be compromised on without it invalidating one's Islam.
    How you define a Muslim is not relevant here. It is not for you to define who is or isn't a Muslim. As I've asked already, what gives you the right to say who is or who isn't a Muslim? This a TSR society that has the intentions of being inclusive. Much like how anti-Mormon comments would not be acceptable in the Christianity society. Some Christian might not believe Mormons are Christians, and they are entitled to believe that. If they wish to debate that, they can post in a debate forum, but the Christian society is not the place for them to force their beliefs and debar certain groups from engaging in the society.

    You have made few valid points for me to debate.
    Likewise. Instead I have just received a list of ad-hominems, false claims among other things.

    When they come on the thread, if they want to learn about the Shia-Sunni divide or about Shi'ism in general, they specifically mention that, or they can go to the Ask about Shi'ism thread, otherwise they ask questions and we answer from our perspective as the majority. When people discuss Islam or ciriticise it on TSR, they refer to Sahih Bukhari, Sahih Muslim, Ibn Kathir, Ibn Taymiyyah, the fiqh of the four madhabs etc because that is what they perceive to be Islam; I have never ever seen non-Muslims debate against Islam using Kitabul Kafi, Najul Balagha, other hadith from the Shia Imams etc because they simply do not perceive Shi'ism to be representative of Islam and most probably don't even know what these books are or who the Imams of Shi'ism are.
    Just because people know less about Shia Islam is not in any way a justification for not providing Shia sources in the OP. In fact, it would support quite the opposite.

    Your idea of inclusive does not match up to ours - we just have different standards, I guess.
    Yeah, obviously you set the bar very low.

    I am already trying to clarify the topic of 'sectarianism' with the CT in the AtCT section in order to clarify this situation, so right now that is not necessary.
    It tends to be better to discuss these topics with the CT instead of making up your own interpretation and editing the OP to "explain" what the CT "really meant".
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Zamestaneh)
    I am simply highlighting that your approach of saying anyone who wants to call themselves a Muslim can be called a Muslim is stupid because there are basic things which cannot be compromised on without it invalidating one's Islam.
    Tell me where I am going wrong. It is obviously superstitious nonsense but a Moslem is someone who believes the six articles of faith:

    1. Belief in just one god
    2. Belief in the angels
    3. Belief in the prophets
    4. Belief in the revelations of Allah, parts of the Bible and the Koran
    5. Belief in the last day of judgment and the hereafter
    6. Belief in predestination

    and follows the five pillars of Islam:
    :
    1. The testimony of faith
    2. Prayer
    3. Giving
    4. Fasting
    5. Pilgrimage

    That is all. Now, how do these other sects go wrong? Some believe other things in addition, but they can all sate the above completely honestly. Anyone who can claim the above is a Moslem, and it is not for you to say otherwise, is it, as that would contravene Islam in itself (and would be highly hypocritical)?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    Tell me where I am going wrong. It is obviously superstitious nonsense but a Moslem is someone who believes the six articles of faith:

    1. Belief in just one god
    2. Belief in the angels
    3. Belief in the prophets
    4. Belief in the revelations of Allah, parts of the Bible and the Koran
    5. Belief in the last day of judgment and the hereafter
    6. Belief in predestination

    and follows the five pillars of Islam:
    :
    1. The testimony of faith
    2. Prayer
    3. Giving
    4. Fasting
    5. Pilgrimage

    That is all. Now, how do these other sects go wrong? Some believe other things in addition, but they can all sate the above completely honestly. Anyone who can claim the above is a Moslem, and it is not for you to say otherwise, is it, as that would contravene Islam in itself (and would be highly hypocritical)?
    Not to mention that in Sahih Bukhari no. 286 it says:

    Allah's Apostle said, "Whoever prays like us and faces our Qibla and eats our slaughtered animals is a Muslim and is under Allah's and His Apostle's protection. So do not betray Allah by betraying those who are in His protection."
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Epicurean)
    The I-Soc is an inter-sect society that operates under TSR rules. If you have issues with TSR's rules, you will have to speak to the CT. But the CT have said they do not tolerate inter-sectarian comments within the I-Soc.
    Forgive me for intruding, but what does 'CT' stand for ?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    Tell me where I am going wrong. It is obviously superstitious nonsense but a Moslem is someone who believes the six articles of faith:

    1. Belief in just one god
    2. Belief in the angels
    3. Belief in the prophets
    4. Belief in the revelations of Allah, parts of the Bible and the Koran
    5. Belief in the last day of judgment and the hereafter
    6. Belief in predestination

    and follows the five pillars of Islam:
    :
    1. The testimony of faith
    2. Prayer
    3. Giving
    4. Fasting
    5. Pilgrimage

    That is all. Now, how do these other sects go wrong? Some believe other things in addition, but they can all sate the above completely honestly. Anyone who can claim the above is a Moslem, and it is not for you to say otherwise, is it, as that would contravene Islam in itself (and would be highly hypocritical)?
    Muhammad is the seal of the Prophets (i.e. the last) and we must understand Islam as he understood it, as the quran tells us to follow him.

    Ahmadiyyah claim Ghulam Ahmad was the Messiah and that all the prophecies of the end times were metaphorical and that he received revelations. This contradicts Islam as understood by Muhammad and his companions, and receiving revelations like that would negate Muhammad being the last and final messenger.

    Alewwis believe that Ali and Muhammad were manifestations of God in some peculiar trinity. The Quran speaks out against the Christians who did the same for Jesus.

    They are non-Muslim groups.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Zamestaneh)

    When lay Muslims and non-Muslims come to learn about Islam, they do not come to check the Shia resourses on Islam, they come to learn Islam as understood by the majority of Muslims, and by including these resources, one is giving equal footing to less widely held beliefs - it is exactly the same as having a section on Jewish theology in the Islamic Society i.e. it has little relevence to helping those who want to learn about Islam.

    This is very offensive.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Zamestaneh)
    Muhammad is the seal of the Prophets (i.e. the last) and we must understand Islam as he understood it, as the quran tells us to follow him.
    Ah! I see. You are blessed with the gift of seeing things exactly as Mohammed saw them. But other people aren't, so how do they know that people who follow the rules exactly are not Moslems?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tawheed)
    This is very offensive.
    Arrogant and divisive are the terms I'd use.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tawheed)
    Forgive me for intruding, but what does 'CT' stand for ?
    It is essentially what the moderation team are called nowadays on TSR. CT stands for Community Team.
 
 
 
Write a reply… Reply
Submit reply

Register

Thanks for posting! You just need to create an account in order to submit the post
  1. this can't be left blank
    that username has been taken, please choose another Forgotten your password?
  2. this can't be left blank
    this email is already registered. Forgotten your password?
  3. this can't be left blank

    6 characters or longer with both numbers and letters is safer

  4. this can't be left empty
    your full birthday is required
  1. Oops, you need to agree to our Ts&Cs to register
  2. Slide to join now Processing…

Updated: October 21, 2016
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Today on TSR
Poll
How are you feeling about doing A-levels?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Quick reply
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.