Not every group that uses the name "Church" is Christian.

[Skillganon]

Ok, you said W ahabi is a sect, tell me how it is a sect?

 

[GARY]

Ok, you said W ahabi is a sect, tell me how it is a sect?

Wa*habism has been described by some as more of a movement than a sect. Others describe it as a sect. But the bottom line is, it boils down to one question, "what is a sect?" So, sect defined is: sect; a group adhering to a distinctive doctrine or to a leader.

Next, what is wa*habism? It is a strict form of islam that insists upon literal interpretation of the quran, in a nutshell.

I think that the confusion comes from three things; the demographics of those that practice Wa*habism, people's definition of the word 'sect', and the fact that they usually don't identify themselves as such.

So first, by definition those that follow the doctrine that prescribes this strict interpretation of islam, and shun many of the teachings found in sunni, shia and other ways of thought, are following wa*habism.

What I meant about the 'demographics' of those that follow wa*habism, is that they can be found anywhere, in any mosque. You can be at a sunni mosque, and find some men that are perhaps not happy with the others that attend the mosque. They may be upset because the others are not following a literal interpretation of each verse in the quran.

These men do not readily identify themselves as following wa*habism. Although some do identify themselves as 'Ikhwan', 'the Brethern'. There is some confusion with mixing up or grouping with 'salafism', which is not exactly the same thing. People that follow wa*habism can be found in any sunni mosque, hence a sort of 'follower of two sects'(I know, a rather 'course' description - I am having trouble articulating what I want to say here *sigh* (cursed poor vocabulary)).
Many in Saudi Arabia follow wa*habism, and the Taliban and 'some' members of Al-Qaeda (I say 'some' because some members of Al-Qaeda are known to have taken part in some 'western' indulgences).

I think because we don't see a name officially pegged to people that they are not following this doctrine. How are sunnis and shia identified? Is it written on the front of the mosque? Or is just known that 'that is a shia mosque'?

A sect does not require a building to gather in( 'shia' mosque or 'wa*habi' mosque) in order to be a sect. They don't have to call themselves the same thing. By definition, they must adhere to a distintive doctrine or a certain leader. Not to say that there isn't entire congregations that meet at certain mosques that are not wa*habis.

The things I have written here may very well be wrong, but it is what I have learned in my study of islam. If I am wrong point it out. If I still disagree I will point out why.

 

[Skillganon]

Wa*habism has been described by some as more of a movement than a sect. Others describe it as a sect. But the bottom line is, it boils down to one question, "what is a sect?" So, sect defined is: sect; a group adhering to a distinctive doctrine or to a leader.

Ok.

Next, what is wa*habism? It is a strict form of islam that insists upon literal interpretation of the quran, in a nutshell.

Not entirely correct to use strict for of Islam.

I think that the confusion comes from three things; the demographics of those that practice Wa*habism, people's definition of the word 'sect', and the fact that they usually don't identify themselves as such.

I can agree, also people think it is a sect because it is sometime potrayed as that, or hence by muslim & non muslim from their own ignorance.

So first, by definition those that follow the doctrine that prescribes this strict interpretation of islam, and shun many of the teachings found in sunni, shia and other ways of thought, are following wa*habism.

Not entirely correct. Incase of Shia it can be said yes.

What I meant about the 'demographics' of those that follow wa*habism, is that they can be found anywhere, in any mosque. You can be at a sunni mosque, and find some men that are perhaps not happy with the others that attend the mosque. They may be upset because the others are not following a literal interpretation of each verse in the quran.

Not entirely correct.

These men do not readily identify themselves as following wa*habism. Although some do identify themselves as 'Ikhwan', 'the Brethern'. There is some confusion with mixing up or grouping with 'salafism', which is not exactly the same thing. People that follow wa*habism can be found in any sunni mosque, hence a sort of 'follower of two sects'(I know, a rather 'course' description - I am having trouble articulating what I want to say here *sigh* (cursed poor vocabulary)).
Many in Saudi Arabia follow wa*habism, and the Taliban and 'some' members of Al-Qaeda (I say 'some' because some members of Al-Qaeda are known to have taken part in some 'western' indulgences).

It will be wrong to mix politics in to it.

I think because we don't see a name officially pegged to people that they are not following this doctrine. How are sunnis and shia identified? Is it written on the front of the mosque? Or is just known that 'that is a shia mosque'?

If something is not readily identified than I can see how most non-muslim can have difficulty with it let alone muslim. Incase of Muslim it will be more out of Ignorance.

A sect does not require a building to gather in( 'shia' mosque or 'wa*habi' mosque) in order to be a sect. They don't have to call themselves the same thing. By definition, they must adhere to a distintive doctrine or a certain leader. Not to say that there isn't entire congregations that meet at certain mosques that are not wa*habis.

The things I have written here may very well be wrong, but it is what I have learned in my study of islam. If I am wrong point it out. If I still disagree I will point out why.

Here is a link that will help to clear think up. I am sure you will find it interesting or atleast a good read.

Link: http://www.islamicboard.com/sects-divisions/

I refered you to the section where the articles is contained, as the word w'ahabi is censored it stops me from posting it.

If you can't access the Link let me know.

 

[Umar001]

Assalamu Aleykum,

Sorry to jump half way through the thread been meaning to reply to this thread.

Salaam,

But the question is this..

If they refer to themselves as christians.....who are we to say they are not?

I mean if i were to have a debate with a chritian of different sect,as you pointed out,anglican,catholics,mormon and so on...and each say they are the rightly guided ones,,,,who are we to say they are wrong?

Each believe that each is right.

But at the core i would say is if the group uses the bible then can they be termed christians.
But then again,every sect have their own bible...

So again,it is awfully easy to be misled..

It is same as in Islam,,,sunni shia and so on,we have different schools of thinking but at the core is the Quran,Allah and Propeht Muhammad saw...

We are all muslim,but you encounter some Saudi sunni who follow their brand of Islam claiming other as not Islam and so on...

Theres a big difference between Islam and Christianity. To compare the saying of Muslims calling other non-Muslims and Christians calling others non-Christian is pretty difficult to swallow.

Can a Muslim be a Muslim if he states "It is not obligatory to pray"? No he can't why because the Prophet said the difference between a Muslim and infidel is the prayer. So thats justified there, we can see how it would work in Islaam.

In Christianity, it is not the same as that.

While it is hard to have an objective standard for something as subjective as faith, I think that you will generally be ok if you use the following criteria to define Christian: "A faith group, or member thereof, who accepts the Bible as both an inspired work and a sufficient record of all that is necessary for salvation, accepts the God of the Bible as the one and only true God, and who views Jesus Christ as the savior of mankind."

So according to the definition given then Mormons would fall under that umbrella, since am sure they believe that the Bible in its originality was sufficient for Salvation.

Even if they did not fall under this then it would not change much, unless a person could bring passages with clear meaning from the Bible and show that the Mormon faith is totally leaving those aside, with no significant reason, then they would be said to be pick and choosers from the Bible.

The above is impossible in my eyes, I wait to be proved wrong.

 

[north_malaysian]

The term "*******sm" is derogatory... just call them Salafism.

 

[GARY]

The term "*******sm" is derogatory... just call them Salafism.

Why is the term wa*habism derogatory?

 

[Skillganon]

Why is the term wa*habism derogatory?

because it is a term used now from a new movement called "*******sm" which came about only two centuries ago during the time of Muhammad Ibn Abdul-Wahhab in Saudi Arabia.

(Following is an excerpt from "TheW'ahhabiMyth.com")

The correct way of referring to them is by terming them Salafis, as they are those who adhere to the way of the Salaf - the Prophet Muhammad (may Allah raise his rank and grant him peace) and his companions.

Following the way of the Salaf is the way which has been legislated in the Quran and Sunnah, the very sources of Islam. The Prophet (may Allah raise his rank and grant him peace) said to his daughter Fatimah: "Indeed, I am for you a blessed Salaf."

When asked about which was the correct and acceptable way of understanding Islam, the Prophet (may Allah raise his rank and grant him peace) replied by saying: "That which I and my companions are upon."

Similarly, Allah says in the Quran that He is pleased with the companions "and also those who follow them exactly (in faith)."

As such, He said regarding the Prophet (may Allah raise his rank and grant him security) and his companions:

"So if they believe as you (i.e. the Salaf) believe, they are indeed rightly guided."

All of the orthodox scholars of Islam followed the way of the Salaf in understanding religion. Early scholars such as Imam al-Awzaa'ee, who died 157 years after the Prophet's emigration to Medina, said: "Be patient upon the Sunnah, and stop where the people (i.e. the Salaf) stopped, and say what they said, and refrain from what they refrained from, and follow the path of your righteous Salaf; for verily, sufficient for you is what was sufficient for them."

Today, one of the famous Sunni schools of jurisprudence is named after a scholar named Abu Haneefah. Millions of Muslims all over the world ascribe themselves to his school of jurisprudence; those who the media would term "mainstream" Muslims. Regarding adherence to the Salafi methodology, he said, "Adhere to the narrations and way of the Salaf, and beware of newly invented matters (in religion), for all of it is innovation."

The orthodox scholars who came after these early generations also followed the understanding of the Salaf in religious matters. Imam ath-Thahabi said: "It is authentically related from ad-Daraqutni (a scholar from approximately 1,000 years ago) that he said: There is nothing more despised by me than 'ilmul-kalaam (innovated speech and rhetoric). I (adh-Thahabee) say: The man never entered into ’ilmul-kalaam, nor did he enter into argumentation (i.e. philosophy), he did not delve into that. Rather, he was Salafee (a follower of the Salaf)."

The present day scholars who stick to the mainstream understanding of Islam also ascribe themselves to the way of the Salaf. Shaykh Saalih al-Fawzaan is considered to be one of the most knowledgeable of scholars alive today. Regarding Salafism, he made the following remark: "It is not a party from amongst the various parties… Hence Salafism is a group of people who are upon the way of the Salaf, upon what the Messenger (may Allah raise his rank and grant him peace) and his Companions were upon; and it is not a party from amongst the contemporary groups present today."

The media claim that Salafis/"*******s" believe that all those who do not follow their form of Islam are heathens" is a tall tale. Salafis believe that those Muslims who do not follow the understanding of the Salaf are not adhering to these and other clear texts. As such, they do not fall under the above-mentioned Quranic verse as being "rightly guided." Salafis distinguish between those who fall into religious innovation and those who fall into disbelief.

When considering the proofs which are contained within the Quran and Sunnah and the statements of all the orthodox scholars of Islam from the earliest generations to the present time, it becomes obvious that it is a great blunder for the media to refer to Salafism as being a new movement called "*******sm" which came about only two centuries ago during the time of Muhammad Ibn Abdul-Wahhab in Saudi Arabia.

 

[Grace Seeker]

Assalamu Aleykum,

Sorry to jump half way through the thread been meaning to reply to this thread.





Theres a big difference between Islam and Christianity. To compare the saying of Muslims calling other non-Muslims and Christians calling others non-Christian is pretty difficult to swallow.

I will agree with your that there is a difference between the denominationalism of Christianity and the sectarian divisions within Islam. But I think you still miss why I say that not every group that uses the name "Church" is Christian. It isn't just that say I disagree with them. But that they also reject my and every other Christian's form of Christianity, often to create something brand new without even any historical connection to previous teachings, other than to reject everything except some new revelation. Their only connection to "Christianity" is to have been originated in western culture, and thus they think that all religious institutions are called churches. I've actually heard of people refer to the Church of Islam. It just shows me that such people no little of either Christianity or Islam.

So according to the definition given then Mormons would fall under that umbrella, since am sure they believe that the Bible in its originality was sufficient for Salvation.

This is exactly what I was talking about above. Mormons DO NOT believe that the Bible in its originality was sufficient for Salvation. That is why they needed a new prophet and new revelation.

Even if they did not fall under this then it would not change much, unless a person could bring passages with clear meaning from the Bible and show that the Mormon faith is totally leaving those aside, with no significant reason, then they would be said to be pick and choosers from the Bible.

The above is impossible in my eyes, I wait to be proved wrong.

I believe I can do that. I can actually do that from Mormon source materail even. Do you want me to spend time on that in this thread or in a thread specifically dedicated to the differences between Mormon and orthodox (used as an adjective, not refering to the denomination) Christian thought?

 

[Umar001]

I will agree with your that there is a difference between the denominationalism of Christianity and the sectarian divisions within Islam. But I think you still miss why I say that not every group that uses the name "Church" is Christian. It isn't just that say I disagree with them. But that they also reject my and every other Christian's form of Christianity, often to create something brand new without even any historical connection to previous teachings, other than to reject everything except some new revelation. Their only connection to "Christianity" is to have been originated in western culture, and thus they think that all religious institutions are called churches. I've actually heard of people refer to the Church of Islam. It just shows me that such people no little of either Christianity or Islam.

This is why I say, bring forth proof that they have left the fold of Christianity, simply saying that they reject your and every other form of Christianity is not proof that they are not Christian, this is why I think the task of saying someone is not Christian is a difficult one, because the boundries are not clear cut, as they tend to be on a whole in Islaam.

This is exactly what I was talking about above. Mormons DO NOT believe that the Bible in its originality was sufficient for Salvation. That is why they needed a new prophet and new revelation.

Ok, well I do not know their position, are you sure that they did not believe the Bible to be enough in its originality but only that as time has gone by that they think that because of the 'innacuracy' new revelation need to be brought?

Also, even if they didn't they would still believe in the bible to some extent and in it's teaching to some extent, would they not? I think that is why you need to bring clear points from the Bible which are not subject to any interpretation and use them to show how Mormons are not Christians, but hen again what is the definition of a Christian, that is something you'd have to provide from the Bible itself. This is why the task is so difficult.

I believe I can do that. I can actually do that from Mormon source materail even. Do you want me to spend time on that in this thread or in a thread specifically dedicated to the differences between Mormon and orthodox (used as an adjective, not refering to the denomination) Christian thought?

If you feel it will hold a thread up on its own make a thread, as that will avoid confusion

 

[Grace Seeker]

If you feel it will hold a thread up on its own make a thread, as that will avoid confusion

There is plenty of information available if there are that many questions. However, I doubt there is sufficient interest. But maybe I am wrong.

My point remains, that lumping all that some have declared to be Christian together is not a correct way to group them. There is as much or more similarity between orthodox Christianity and Islam as there is between orthodox Christianity and Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, or Christian Science. Those three groups (are completely unlike each other also), have their own scriptures that supersede the Bible, they feel that the Bible has been corrupted, they deny the divinity of Jesus (except where they claim that all humans have a divine nature which belongs to them also), they do not think that one can be based saved solely on the message found in the Bible, and in some cases actually believe in a completely different God than the God of Abraham. (Mormonism isn't even monotheistic.) I would rather my children grow up Muslim than any of these other groups; I think Islam at least worships the true God, which I think these others have perverted into something else.

So, I am simply saying don't be fooled by the name above the door. There are all sorts of different things on the inside. Don't let the name "Church" fool you into thinking that we should all be lumped into the same category unless your are willing for Islam, Judaism, and Christianity to all be lumped together as similar because we all are descendants of the faith of Abraham.

 

[snakelegs]

hehe..... christians do takfir too! ;D ;D ;D

 

[Grace Seeker]

hehe..... christians do takfir too! ;D ;D ;D

Probably. I certainly can't argue with you, as I have no idea what "takfir" is. I've picked up a few words in the month I've been here, but not that one. Is there a glossary someone can refer me to???laying:

 

[YusufNoor]

Allahu Akbar!



one of the forums is for new "reverts" or folks intereted in Islam. there are some posts on defintions. the one under Hajj.














i use it!;D

Peace!

 

[Woodrow]

Here also is a nice link to common phrases. You will note that the transliteration vary from site to site as there is no real phonetic equivilants for some arabic pronunciations.

http://www.geocities.com/mutmainaa/expressions.html

 

[snakelegs]

Probably. I certainly can't argue with you, as I have no idea what "takfir" is. I've picked up a few words in the month I've been here, but not that one. Is there a glossary someone can refer me to???laying:

some muslims have a hobby of calling each other kafirs.
and apparently, some christians like to call other christians non-christian.
sometimes it's not as much fun to be an agnostic.

 

[Grace Seeker]

some muslims have a hobby of calling each other kafirs.
and apparently, some christians like to call other christians non-christian.
sometimes it's not as much fun to be an agnostic.

Yeah, we are guilty of that also. My grandmother used to swear that all Catholics were going to hell.

And though I guess that others see me as doing that in this thread, I have tried to do all I can to show you that I am speaking of something different. If you don't get it, then you don't get it. But if you don't get it, then you really will likely never fully understand Christianity.

You likely also will think that all meat is meat, yet as any good Jew or Muslim will tell you, pork may be meat, and they may eat meat, but they don't eat pork. Likewise, you may think that the flesh of all animals is meat, but as any strict Catholic will tell you they don't eat meat on Fridays, but they do eat fish. There is a difference between what is Christian, and some of the other religious groups that others are putting in the same box. What you do with Jesus and the plan of salvation is the key to discriminating between them.

 

[snakelegs]

i know there is a great diversity among christian beliefs.
but if someone defines himself as christian, that's enough for me.

 

[Keltoi]

i know there is a great diversity among christian beliefs.
but if someone defines himself as christian, that's enough for me.

One cannot be a Christian if they don't believe Christ was crucified for our sins and was resurrected. That is the core belief behind Christianity. If you call yourself a Christian but do not believe Christ was crucified for your sins, or that he wasn't resurrected, then you are not a "Christian". Calling yourself a Christian is one thing, being a Christian is something else.

 

[snakelegs]

are there people who call themselves christians and don't believe these 2 things?

 

[Keltoi]

are there people who call themselves christians and don't believe these 2 things?

I'm sure there are many on an individual level, but as for churches, the Unitarian Universalists would be one example. There is alot of debate about Mormons, but I think while Mormons believe some very strange things from my perspective, they do believe in the divinity and resurrection of Jesus Christ.