Do we really respect each other's beliefs?

[Nossa]

I think the only other difference between Sunni's and Shia's is the disagreement over importance and value and validity of certain collections of hadith which i believe from my religion courses in school, are oral traditions of the words and deeds of the Prophet, that were later written down as kind of supplements to the Qu'ran on how to live, and behave... The disputes are caused here, alot by the fact the sources were obscure, and many flat out contradict one another, some even appear at variance with parts of the qu'ran and are therefore thrown out, some seem to be political propaganda, so they are an issue of constant study it seems...

The Hadith is a very wide and complicated area of study, but one thing I know for sure is that the majority of Shias agree and accept the Hadith, as said by Propher Muhammed, they might disagree, however, on who narrates it (on behalf of Prophet Muhammed after his death). I think I need to mention here that they only take those said by Ali Ibn Abi Taleb and his family as the most reliablt source of all. One area of difference between the Sunnis and the Shias is that of marriage, and the laws of marriage, but not even marriage in general, certain aspects of it, and certain cases of it.

Other disagreements are drawn from the fact that, while Sunnis have Four different Imams (as in four different people with reliable interpretations of the Hadith and Qura'an) for the Shias these four are not as reliable, as the main principle of the Shia is that Ali Ibn Abi Taleb is the right, deserved Imam of Islam (they also believe in 12 different Imams whom are all from Ali Ibn Abi Taleb's family). Even with all this, Islam has five principles that we all as Muslims agree on, maybe some cults would 'perform' them differently (like certain cults in Shia, they differ in how they 'perform' their prayer, but not in the content of the prayer itself).

In general, I know it might sound that we disgaree on a whole lot of things, but if you read in Islam jursiprudence, you'll know that eventually, these are minor details, that weren't even looked upon or noticed before the war in Iraq in particular.

[Virgil]

I think I need to state here a historical fact, that the Shia to begin with was essentially a political philosophy, that turned religious through ages. For starters, the idea of being a Shia started by a certain political election (in the year 657), that was between two main figures back then in the Islamic world. One of these two main figures, Ali Ibn Abi Taleb, was the one who lost back then, and the ones who believed that he deserved it more than his opponent, were the founder of the Shia cult, which is basically about staying true and loyal to Ali who was wronged in those elections of choosing a Muslim Imam, and through time Ali became a holy figure to them, alomost as holy as Prophet Muhammed. And as usual, some people took it a bit too far . The thing is, the Shia themselves are divided to many cults already, some of them do disagree with Sunnis on principles (like how some of them put Ali Ibn Abi Taleb in the status of a God, and that he had the same revelations of Prophet Muhammed. But these cults do not represent the majority of the Shias) but most of them are more like Sunnis if it wasn't for the 'minor' things they disagree with us about.

I disagree, highly disagree, that our differences are that of theology,

The Hadith is a very wide and complicated area of study, but one thing I know for sure is that the majority of Shias agree and accept the Hadith, as said by Propher Muhammed, they might disagree, however, on who narrates it (on behalf of Prophet Muhammed after his death). I think I need to mention here that they only take those said by Ali Ibn Abi Taleb and his family as the most reliablt source of all. One area of difference between the Sunnis and the Shias is that of marriage, and the laws of marriage, but not even marriage in general, certain aspects of it, and certain cases of it.

Other disagreements are drawn from the fact that, while Sunnis have Four different Imams (as in four different people with reliable interpretations of the Hadith and Qura'an) for the Shias these four are not as reliable, as the main principle of the Shia is that Ali Ibn Abi Taleb is the right, deserved Imam of Islam (they also believe in 12 different Imams whom are all from Ali Ibn Abi Taleb's family). Even with all this, Islam has five principles that we all as Muslims agree on, maybe some cults would 'perform' them differently (like certain cults in Shia, they differ in how they 'perform' their prayer, but not in the content of the prayer itself).

In general, I know it might sound that we disgaree on a whole lot of things, but if you read in Islam jursiprudence, you'll know that eventually, these are minor details, that weren't even looked upon or noticed before the war in Iraq in particular.

I'm not expert but those differences sound as different as when I say there are different Christianities. Let me give you an example from Christianity. All Christians believe Christ is the son of God and the Messiah, which essentially means that He reopened the gates of heaven through his Ressurection. But there have been several major splits in theological beliefs over time. Actually I found a really cool image that shows the different branches of Christianity:


Actually the Christians you may be familiar with in your country (Egyptian Coptic) are part of the yellow line that split early in the 5th century. The central thoelogical distinction for them rests on Christ's humanity as to whether he was of two natures, God and man.

The major split occurs between the Western chrurch (red line) and the Eastern church (blue line) called the great schism of the 11th century. Now I can't find any major theological difference between the two, and frankly I would catagorize the split between them to be political and cultural. As you can see they a "union" line that kind of reunites them, and this was an agreement at some point that acknowledges their essential similarity. Given that between Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches makes up a huge part of Christianity, I would say that there is a good deal of theological agreement within it. And the two Churches have for many years striven to once again heal and reintegrate.

Now it gets interesting on Protestant split from the Western church in the 16th century. Here the fundemental distinction [remember there are numerous Protestant beliefs so there are smaller distnctions as well} is Protestants do not believe in the need for an individual to need a religious institution as an intermediary with God while the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox and even the Egyption Coptics believe that one needs consecrated priests to administer sacrements (religious rites) and an instituion to interpret theology. That's basically it. That's the distinction. There are more perhaps, but those are even more minor.

So when I say multiple Christianities, the distinctions are over a few theological intepretations that to an outsider must seem really small. The differences you sight between Shia and Sunni seem as small as these. So why not consider it separate branches?

[Nossa]

The differences you sight between Shia and Sunni seem as small as these. So why not consider it separate branches?

Well, if we're gonna put it in terms of them being separate branches, then I think I can agree. The idea is, we do not disagree on basics or fundementals, we disagree on mere interpretations and favoring certain Islamic figures. I still disagree that our differences are those of theology, cuz being different in interpretations doesn't mean that we don't essentially agree on the same thing. I need to stress that the division that led to the foundation of the Shia cult was NOT of theology, it was a mere political situation. As a matter of fact, the word Shia in Arabic means the group of someone, who was Ali Ibn Abil Taleb at that time (and still). There was no division in the time of Prophet Muhammed and the Four Imams of Islam (Prophet Muhammed successors). But yeah, it's only logically speaking that they ARE two branches, I won't argue about it.

And just an off point comment, isn't it funny how we turned from the original topic of the thread to a while different subject

Edit*
Just to make it more clear, the differences were/are merely based on the incident that I mentioned in a previous post. That political incident led to what happened next and the existence of Shia and Sunni. Just thought I'd say that, cuz after re-reading my post, I thought I didn't make it quite clear

[curlyqlink]

Nossa:

I'm really not against discussion, and opposing opinions is not wrong, just being agressive is the thing I hate about some people.

You hate about some people?! As follow-up to your post about respect and tolerance, you say you hate people who are "aggressive" in their arguments? Now I truly have no idea what you mean by "respect".

[Nossa]

Nossa:


You hate about some people?! As follow-up to your post about respect and tolerance, you say you hate people who are "aggressive" in their arguments? Now I truly have no idea what you mean by "respect".

I thought it was quite clear actually. I'm not against discussion, but I don't like it when people are either agressive, or just don't know when to stop and 'respect' the fact that other people do have other beliefs, just like him/herself. You argue about your own belief, fine, but others also have the right to have beliefs, and you're not supposed to always try to talk them out of it. Hope I made it clear. I think a part of the respect I'm talking about is partly respecting the persons themsleves, and our right to have different beliefs. Hope that cleared things up for ya.

[islandclimber]

Nossa:


You hate about some people?! As follow-up to your post about respect and tolerance, you say you hate people who are "aggressive" in their arguments? Now I truly have no idea what you mean by "respect".

are you serious??? She isn't saying she hates the people personally, she hates that type of behaviour.... which is something entirely different... I dislike the super aggressive, disrespectful behaviour as well... but how do you get that we dislike or hate the people from this?

[Sarasvati21]

I don't think it is my place to criticize, bash, or otherwise disrespect those who have beliefs that differ from mine. I don't appreciate it when ignorant people tell me I am wrong for what I believe, and I know for certain that it would be betraying my ignorance to tell them they are wrong. I have, rarely, found people with whom it is possible to have a civilized discussion without any party feeling like they have to aggressively defend their viewpoint. It's too bad those encounters are so rare.

[Virgil]

Well, if we're gonna put it in terms of them being separate branches, then I think I can agree. The idea is, we do not disagree on basics or fundementals, we disagree on mere interpretations and favoring certain Islamic figures. I still disagree that our differences are those of theology, cuz being different in interpretations doesn't mean that we don't essentially agree on the same thing. I need to stress that the division that led to the foundation of the Shia cult was NOT of theology, it was a mere political situation. As a matter of fact, the word Shia in Arabic means the group of someone, who was Ali Ibn Abil Taleb at that time (and still). There was no division in the time of Prophet Muhammed and the Four Imams of Islam (Prophet Muhammed successors). But yeah, it's only logically speaking that they ARE two branches, I won't argue about it.

I would think this statement from your previous post would classify as a theological difference.

Other disagreements are drawn from the fact that, while Sunnis have Four different Imams (as in four different people with reliable interpretations of the Hadith and Qura'an) for the Shias these four are not as reliable, as the main principle of the Shia is that Ali Ibn Abi Taleb is the right, deserved Imam of Islam (they also believe in 12 different Imams whom are all from Ali Ibn Abi Taleb's family).

But it would be hard for me to really know given my ignorance of the nuances of Islam. I am aware of the five principles, so perhaps I'm not that ignorant. As a side note, I work with a few muslims. In fact my boss's boss is mulsim, and I've known him a long time. I'm not sure if he's Shia or Sunni. He's from India.

And just an off point comment, isn't it funny how we turned from the original topic of the thread to a while different subject

Yes, but this is a good example of how people should discuss topics in the religious forum. So it's not really off topic. We provided an example.

Edit*
Just to make it more clear, the differences were/are merely based on the incident that I mentioned in a previous post. That political incident led to what happened next and the existence of Shia and Sunni. Just thought I'd say that, cuz after re-reading my post, I thought I didn't make it quite clear

I understood. Thanks. Perhaps the split started as a political issue but over time one of the two may have evolved theologically? Again you would know better.

[Nossa]

I would think this statement from your previous post would classify as a theological difference.

You might be right, but it really depends on the way you see it. I don't regard having a certain preference for a certain Islamic figure, and having a different interpretations to a certain Hadith (which is normaly of minor things) I don't regard these as differences in theology, cuz I believe that people different in theology are those who disagree on principles. Maybe it's just me, I always hated the fact that we call each other Shia and Sunni, after all we're all Mulims, but that's just me
PS: Hating this idea doesn't mean that I deny having two branches in my religion of course.

But it would be hard for me to really know given my ignorance of the nuances of Islam. I am aware of the five principles, so perhaps I'm not that ignorant. As a side note, I work with a few muslims. In fact my boss's boss is mulsim, and I've known him a long time. I'm not sure if he's Shia or Sunni. He's from India.

That is exactly what I'm talking about. He's just a Muslims. Whether he turns out to be a sunni or a shia is irrelevant. Plus, if you know the five principles if Islam (like the prayers and fasting for instance) you'll find him doing the same thing as any Muslum you'd see anywhere.

Yes, but this is a good example of how people should discuss topics in the religious forum. So it's not really off topic. We provided an example.

Yup, I agree , I'm really glad we all had this conversation. Maybe this thread wasn't a bad idea after all

[sonofaslan]

I am a little late in this thread. I apologize.

I agree that respect for people's belief's should be practiced. I am a mod on another Christian Forum that allows all religions (and atheists) to join and present their views. So practice in this regard is very prominent to me.

But I have found that many people regard mere disagreement as intolerance. I've never understand that. I can respect one's belief without being an adherent. But to so many, unless everyone breaks down and agrees with one's belief, they claim their beliefs isn't being respected.

Typical arguments go something like this...

"I believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster."

"I believe in Judaism. I have always rejected the idea of the FSM due to the fact that it is a caricature invented to parity Christianity. Good as an example, but not an objective entity."

"Well, my belief is as good as yours. Since you do believe in my god, in addition to your god, then you are being disrespectful and intolerant of my religion!!!"

And then admin's get e-mailed, and so on and so forth. Feelings get hurt, and then no one wants to take part in it anymore.

It is a never ending cycle.

[Nossa]

I am a little late in this thread. I apologize.

I agree that respect for people's belief's should be practiced. I am a mod on another Christian Forum that allows all religions (and atheists) to join and present their views. So practice in this regard is very prominent to me.

But I have found that many people regard mere disagreement as intolerance. I've never understand that. I can respect one's belief without being an adherent. But to so many, unless everyone breaks down and agrees with one's belief, they claim their beliefs isn't being respected.

Typical arguments go something like this...

"I believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster."

"I believe in Judaism. I have always rejected the idea of the FSM due to the fact that it is a caricature invented to parity Christianity. Good as an example, but not an objective entity."

"Well, my belief is as good as yours. Since you do believe in my god, in addition to your god, then you are being disrespectful and intolerant of my religion!!!"

And then admin's get e-mailed, and so on and so forth. Feelings get hurt, and then no one wants to take part in it anymore.

It is a never ending cycle.

I understand your confusion, and I'm sorry to have caused it, cuz I didn't express myself clearly from the start. I agree on the same point you mentioned, I'm not against discussion and even argument, as long as it's not out of line, as in being disrespectful or agressive from one person towards the other just cuz they happen to differ in belief. I hope that made things clear for you.

[sonofaslan]

Nossa, I wasn't responding to anything you posted specifically. I was just contributing my $.02 on the situation, hoping my insight would bring clarity to the potentially volatile discussion that is associated with religion.

[Nossa]

Nossa, I was responding to anything you posted specifically. I was just contributing my $.02 on the situation, hoping my insight would bring clarity to the potentially volatile discussion that is associated with religion.

Yeah, I know. No worries

[aabbcc]

Beautiful, what a lovely off-topic we made.

Well, while we are still off-topic, I've a question for Nossa, or whoever else can respond to me from the Muslim perspective. As far as I know, islam remains faithful to the idea of one G-d (no Trinity or similar ways of 'masquing' politheism). Yet, Muhammad is claimed to have been the last prophet, and Jesus (=Issa) is considered a prophet too (correct me if I am wrong).
Yet, the teachings of Issa go directly against the idea of G-d as one. How is that viewed?

[Nossa]

Beautiful, what a lovely off-topic we made.

Well, while we are still off-topic, I've a question for Nossa, or whoever else can respond to me from the Muslim perspective. As far as I know, islam remains faithful to the idea of one G-d (no Trinity or similar ways of 'masquing' politheism). Yet, Muhammad is claimed to have been the last prophet, and Jesus (=Issa) is considered a prophet too (correct me if I am wrong).
Yet, the teachings of Issa go directly against the idea of G-d as one. How is that viewed?

Recognizing Jesus as a prophet is a main principle of the Islamic faith, same as Moses and Ibraham and any other prophet. We respect and admire them as much as Prophet Muhammed, and anyone who insults or disrespects any of the prophets is considered a sinner, if not, in some cases, directly out of the right Islamic path. The thing is, our view of Jesus is different from that of Christianity. While some Christian cults believe that Jesus was a god/ son of God, we believe he was only a prophet. Same as Prophet Muhammed. There are no prophets, according to the Islamic faith, who are highered to the status of a God, cuz there's only one God. In this case, for any Muslim, what we do is basically respect the fact that some people think of Jesus as a God or a son of God, but we don't have to accept or admit this fact.

I must stress here that Islam highly respects Jesus and the Virgin Mary. As a matter of fact we have a whole Surah in Qura'an entitled 'Mariam' (the Arabic name for Mary) and it tells of the life story of Virgin Mary, praising her and telling of the miracles of Jesus. I, as a Muslim, don't have a problem with anyone who believes Jesus to be a God, and this of course, again, has to do with the idea of respect I've been talking about in the thread.

I hope I got your question right and answered it thoroughly