What do Muslims want from Non-Muslims.

[Grace Seeker]

the [what i like to call] "readers digest version/understanding" of Nicaea is that the question of Arianism arose and concluded in a nice little episode similar to a one hour TV mystery. that is simply NOT TRUE!

And I never implied that Arianism was a fleeting thing. It's legacy still exists to this day.

And I've also never implied that orthodoxy (then or now) is simple versus complex. There were then and still are today many competing theories as to how to explain Jesus' divinity. In fact, Arianism was also one of those attempts. It wasn't that there was a single way that orthodoxy was expressed, but that there were somethings, such as saying that the Son was a created being, that went outside the tent (however big that tent was is hard to determine today) and, it was argued, could not be accepted as orthodox (meaning "right" or "straight") teaching.

just because you are protestant preacher pimping the primacy of proto-orthdoxy doesn't make it presently prevalent! let alone TRUTHFUL, or even ACCURATE!

No, it doesn't. And just because you disagree with it doesn't make it false. Hear again what I said. Listen, don't react. I said:

The counterargument then was that Arianism was even at the time an unorthodox view...

What could be a more truthful statement? That's such an obvious statement that it's like "Duh! True by definition." If you don't get it, then you aren't as smart as I thought you were. If Arianism hadn't been seen as unorthodox, then there would have been no one arguing against it. All those who countered the arguments of Arius and others who believed as he did, did so saying that their Arian arguments were unorthodox.

You may contend that Athansius was wrong. You might even argue that he was in the minority, though events prove otherwise. But to suggest that those who opposed Arianism didn't see it as being unorthodox is simply ridiculous. If not for being unorthodox, on what grounds do Athanasius and those others who opposed and eventually overwhelmingly voted against Arianism do so?

-------edit----------

Look. I'm happy to simply read this thread and learn what Muslims want. I only entered it to post in answer to a question put to Christians and in support of Woodrow. But if you continue to attack me on a personal basis, then expect this thread to get sidetracked because I will defend myself.

Now, you've said that I've inferred something different from your post than you meant. I know you to be a person of strong opinions, but I don't know you to be a liar. So, I can accept that I was wrong in drawing that inference.

I don't go around making wild and unsubstantiatable claims either. So, if you take exception to something I've said as not being factual, take a second look. Maybe you misunderstood what I wrote, inferring something different from it than I intended, just as I did with your post.

Can we let this go so that this thread can get back to its intended purpose rather than a debate over what was and was not orthodoxy at the time? Both Athanasius and Arius each thought they were right at the time, and would have been arguing that the other was wrong and therefore unorthodox. I don't see how there is anything untruthful in such a statement. And if you got anything else out of what I wrote, I apologize for not doing a better job of writing so that I left my point was unclear.

With that said. I wish you peace. Let's move on.

.

 

[Pygoscelis]

I want non-Muslims to come out in the open n discuss normal things with us that effect us all. By out in the open I mean 'participate' in other parts of this forum besides the comparative religion section. I want to see u in a different light, in a different mood. Majority of the non-Muslims on this forum come across to me as not very light'hearted n somewhat uptigh n robotic. I also feel that they seem a bit uncomfortable, just relax n be urself, lets see ur human side. : )!

Would be nice if it were like that but I don't think you can expect us outsiders to kick back and relax as if this was our home. It isn't. It is foreign and often hostile territory for a non-muslim around here. Just look at Grace Seekers interactions right here in this thread (or any other thread with a non-muslim posting in it).

The fact of the matter is that the mere presence of somebody known to be a non-muslim in a thread changes the atmosphere of that thread, no matter what that person actually says or contributes.

So I would rather stay out of your more private muslim on muslim areas and keep to the areas, that us outsiders are specifically addressed in and invited to participate in (such as "comparative religion" or "what do non-muslims want from muslims" etc) . Its just like I would speak with real life muslims on the street but I would not walk into a mosque and kick back and relax and joke around there. I'd feel disrespectful doing that.

 

[YusufNoor]

And I never implied that Arianism was a fleeting thing. It's legacy still exists to this day.

no, but you implied that "what became nicene" was. this is an old opinion, 21st century scholarship is abandoning that position.

And I've also never implied that orthodoxy (then or now) is simple versus complex. There were then and still are today many competing theories as to how to explain Jesus' divinity.

i hate to burst your bubble, but the simple FACT that Jesus is NOT divine AUTOMATICALLY precludes ANY position to the contrary as being "orthodox - sound or correct" and therefore the word must be used as "orthodox - 1.of, pertaining to, or conforming to the approved form of any doctrine, philosophy, ideology, etc. 2. of, pertaining to, or conforming to beliefs, attitudes, or modes of conduct that are generally approved. 3. customary or conventional, as a means or method; established. ; therefore as the Athanasian concept of the trinity has of yet to be : "approved" generally approved or "established" it CANNOT be said to be "orthodox," which is why you may call it proto-orthodox as it EVENTUALLY BECAME orthodox. and even here, i would make the claim that it's "acceptance as orthodox" both as "accepted" AND as the "correct OPINION [and only opinion - as it cannot be fact]" was a longer process as far as "correctness" and even longer as accepted.

In fact, Arianism was also one of those attempts. It wasn't that there was a single way that orthodoxy was expressed, but that there were somethings, such as saying that the Son was a created being, that went outside the tent (however big that tent was is hard to determine today) and, it was argued, could not be accepted as orthodox (meaning "right" or "straight") teaching.

if there is no single way, how does the opposite of a[ny] position become the only solution UNLESS there are only 2 choices?

No, it doesn't. And just because you disagree with it doesn't make it false. Hear again what I said. Listen, don't react. I said:


What could be a more truthful statement? That's such an obvious statement that it's like "Duh! True by definition." If you don't get it, then you aren't as smart as I thought you were. If Arianism hadn't been seen as unorthodox, then there would have been no one arguing against it. All those who countered the arguments of Arius and others who believed as he did, did so saying that their Arian arguments were unorthodox.

as it CANNOT be true, it can only be considered true, ie an opinion. look at what i posted on Eusebius:

Although Eusebius signed on to the Nicene Creed (after being excommunicated for heresy), he differed from it in certain respects. He denied that the Son and the Father were of the same essence, positing instead that the Son proceeded from the Father’s free will (creative act?). He also did not want to compromise the oneness of the Godhead, which he thought the notion of the Son’s divinity would do. And, unlike Trinitarians, he did not view the Holy Spirit as an eternal being, but rather as a creation by the Son.

Eusebius DIDN'T agree with it, as in "correct" but capitulated that it was "accepted."

You may contend that Athansius was wrong. You might even argue that he was in the minority, though events prove otherwise.

because something is dominant at a given point, does NOT confirm it's dominance at an earlier point.

But to suggest that those who opposed Arianism didn't see it as being unorthodox is simply ridiculous. If not for being unorthodox, on what grounds do Athanasius and those others who opposed and eventually overwhelmingly voted against Arianism do so?

using "orthodox" as "accepted, NOTHING was in general thought to be orthodox as there would have been no need to meet if it was. as for why either position would be considered "correct?" i can't account for the general ignorance of the players.

-------edit----------

Look. I'm happy to simply read this thread and learn what Muslims want. I only entered it to post in answer to a question put to Christians and in support of Woodrow. But if you continue to attack me on a personal basis, then expect this thread to get sidetracked because I will defend myself.

Now, you've said that I've inferred something different from your post than you meant. I know you to be a person of strong opinions, but I don't know you to be a liar. So, I can accept that I was wrong in drawing that inference.

I don't go around making wild and unsubstantiatable claims either. So, if you take exception to something I've said as not being factual, take a second look. Maybe you misunderstood what I wrote, inferring something different from it than I intended, just as I did with your post.

Can we let this go so that this thread can get back to its intended purpose rather than a debate over what was and was not orthodoxy at the time? Both Athanasius and Arius each thought they were right at the time, and would have been arguing that the other was wrong and therefore unorthodox. I don't see how there is anything untruthful in such a statement. And if you got anything else out of what I wrote, I apologize for not doing a better job of writing so that I left my point was unclear.

With that said. I wish you peace. Let's move on.
.

i would define your postion on Anathasian trinitarianism as being that it was "generally accepted by the mass of Christians" BEFORE and after the Council of Niceae. i would even concede that 50 years ago a majority of Christian Scholars would have held that position. what i am saying is that is NOT considered to be so any longer, no longer "orthodox" so to speak. AND that the numbers of Christians at that time is also being considerably revised in a downward manner.

keeping with the theme of the thread, if non-Muslims [read Christians] want us to be "correct" in terms of speaking on Christianity [which they RARELY apply when THEY speak on Islam], then i think it is incumbent on them to be current and honest on what Scholarship says instead of just using what works best for them or what is simply their outdated opinion, whether they considered it "orthodox" or not.

is that clear?

peace

 

[GuestFellow]

I have no idea how this topic became a discussion about trinitarianism.

fftopic:

 

[Grace Seeker]

keeping with the theme of the thread, if non-Muslims [read Christians] want us to be "correct" in terms of speaking on Christianity [which they RARELY apply when THEY speak on Islam], then i think it is incumbent on them to be current and honest on what Scholarship says instead of just using what works best for them or what is simply their outdated opinion, whether they considered it "orthodox" or not.

is that clear?

peace

OK. These are certainly reasonable expectations.

I do try to be honest with regard to what scholarship says, even that scholarship which expresses an opinion different than mine.
I will try to remain as current as possible.


(Please understand that you and I may have different views as to who are and who are not accepted as scholars. For example, I find some people think the Jesus' Seminar reflects scholarship. While there may be a few scholars who are a part of it, on the whole their publications reflect very little scholarship.)


What else do you want?
.

 

[LauraS]

I want non-Muslims to mind their own business, to take their bases, their filth, their debauchery, their illegal wars, their greed, their evangelism, pagan gods, their w hores and the colonial settler state out of Muslim lands.

Which is an example of why conflicts arise on the forum between Muslims and non-Muslims. :heated: Surely you want non-Muslims to treat you with respect.

Woodrow makes fair points.

This thread went quickly into debate I see. For relationships between different religions/cultures to work on this forum then members have to debate without ridiculing the ither's beliefs. Disagree, but without the "You are wrong. You are stupid." attitude.

 

[CosmicPathos]

Which is an example of why conflicts arise on the forum between Muslims and non-Muslims. :heated: Surely you want non-Muslims to treat you with respect.

Woodrow makes fair points.

This thread went quickly into debate I see. For relationships between different religions/cultures to work on this forum then members have to debate without ridiculing the ither's beliefs. Disagree, but without the "You are wrong. You are stupid." attitude.

no, we dont want to be "respected" by kufaar. Our only goal is to please Allah, not to be respected by those destined to the Hellfire.

 

[CosmicPathos]

In the West, the idea of morality is approached in a much more open-minded manner than in any "specific camp" (by which I'm assuming you mean a religious group.) We're a secular and pluralistic society, so there is no unilaterally-defined moral teaching like in religion; it had been so throughout the Middle Ages when Christianity controlled morality in society, but ever since the Renaissance and the Enlightenment (when philosophers finally started to challenge religious teachings), morality became more than just a matter of what is written in the bible or what God wants from you. The writings of these philosophers identified the very blatant moral failures of religion, and so religious morality had been gradually cast aside over the past 200 years.



In the scientific community, yes, the big bang is more or less agreed upon by all. I was talking about the 'big bang' in the Quran.

what's wrong with the "big bang" in the Quran? I would have to classify you as a demented person with toxoplasmic lesions in corpus callosum if you deduced from just reading English translations that quran's big bang is "inaccurate."

 

[Tyrion]

no, we dont want to be "respected" by kufaar. Our only goal is to please Allah, not to be respected by those destined to the Hellfire.

Why are you always so angry at the non-Muslim members? Well, angry in general... There's nothing wrong with some mutual respect, so try not to get so worked up. And I think someone else mentioned this before, but maybe you should try not to use the word "kufaar" as an insult.

Also, don't assume people are destined for Hellfire. For all you know, their standing with God is better than yours.

 

[CosmicPathos]

Why are you always so angry at the non-Muslim members? Well, angry in general... There's nothing wrong with some mutual respect, so try not to get so worked up. And I think someone else mentioned this before, but maybe you should try not to use the word "kufaar" as an insult.

Also, don't assume people are destined for Hellfire. For all you know, their standing with God is better than yours.

thats a part of being a Muslim.

Hey, I am not specifying who is going to the hellfire, I dont know that, only Allah knows. BUT, that does not mean that I cannot say kufaars will not go to the Hellfire. I can say that. I must say that. In fact, every Muslim must believe that and say that. That "kaafirs will go to hellfire." That is right from the Quran. I cannot specify which person, but I can specify which group.

 

[CosmicPathos]

Why are you always so angry at the non-Muslim members? Well, angry in general... There's nothing wrong with some mutual respect, so try not to get so worked up. And I think someone else mentioned this before, but maybe you should try not to use the word "kufaar" as an insult.

Also, don't assume people are destined for Hellfire. For all you know, their standing with God is better than yours.

i am not angry at lauraS at all. I am criticizing her claims which seem to be ludicrous. Also those of this atheist thucydlides or however you spell his name.

Hey, I am not specifying who is going to the hellfire, I dont know that, only Allah knows. BUT, that does not mean that I cannot say kufaars will not go to the Hellfire. I can say that. I must say that. In fact, every Muslim must believe that and say that. That "kaafirs will go to hellfire." That is right from the Quran. I cannot specify which person, but I can specify which group.

Kaafir is derived from kufr which means to hide. Allah uses this term to label the disbelievers as deceivers. So yes, it is an insulting word depending on the context it is used in.

 

[Sawdah]

Please delete my post.

JazakumAllah Khair.

 

[LauraS]

no, we dont want to be "respected" by kufaar. Our only goal is to please Allah, not to be respected by those destined to the Hellfire.

So you don't want to be respected by non-Muslims, which means you quite happy for prejudiced people to carry out acts like burning the Qur'an and a general disharmony between Muslims and non-Muslims, which is exactly what these threads are meant to be about stopping?

You're not even making any sense.....

 

[Perseveranze]

The fact of the matter is that the mere presence of somebody known to be a non-muslim in a thread changes the atmosphere of that thread, no matter what that person actually says or contributes.

Asalaamu Alaikum,

you seem paranoid, I can't speak for everyone, but I'm sure the majority don't look at it as your presenting. Not once have I ever taken note of any of these things or felt the mood of any thread has changed.

 

[GuestFellow]

no, we dont want to be "respected" by kufaar. Our only goal is to please Allah, not to be respected by those destined to the Hellfire.

I'm certain there are Muslims that desire respect and tolerance from non-Muslims. Otherwise some of us would not have been offended when some people insult our religion.

 

[Ansariyah]

So I would rather stay out of your more private muslim on muslim areas and keep to the areas, that us outsiders are specifically addressed in and invited to participate in (such as "comparative religion" or "what do non-muslims want from muslims" etc) . Its just like I would speak with real life muslims on the street but I would not walk into a mosque and kick back and relax and joke around there. I'd feel disrespectful doing that.

Fair enuff, its ur choice.

If u do decide to come out in the open I assure u that we wont think of it as disrespectful.

 

[Grace Seeker]

Another addition to the want list.

I would like to see more non-Muslims understand that we do consider trinitarianism to be the worship of 3 Gods.

Granted. This is what Muslims consider to be true.

Can you accept that Christians (at least those that are trinitarian) do not see it that same way as you do, and that we understand our worship to be of one God who exists in three persons? Can you understand (I didn't say agree with) that our expression of the Trinity is specifically because we do not believe that there is more than one God, and so if we have experienced the divine presence in three different persons yet still affirm that there is just one God, that we have to find new language (trinitarian language) by which to express this phenomena?

 

[Woodrow]

Granted. This is what Muslims consider to be true.

Can you accept that Christians (at least those that are trinitarian) do not see it that same way as you do, and that we understand our worship to be of one God who exists in three persons? Can you understand (I didn't say agree with) that our expression of the Trinity is specifically because we do not believe that there is more than one God, and so if we have experienced the divine presence in three different persons yet still affirm that there is just one God, that we have to find new language (trinitarian language) by which to express this phenomena?

Here is a good point where we can all test our ability to understand that people of different faiths do have areas that differ. To be tolerant of another person's beliefs does not mean agreement or approval of what the other person believes. The concept of a trinity or rather the discussion of trinity is an area that is very vulnerable to misunderstanding in both directions. As difficult as it may be us Muslims need to understand that Christians do not see trinitarian belief as being polytheistic and Christians need to understand that Muslims see it as being polytheistic.

I think the only workable path to take, when disagreements of the trinity occur. is for all of us is to only understand the other person sincerely believes his/her view is correct. and we are most probably not going to change their view on a forum. So we agree to disagree without malice and move on to what ever is next/