RE: Questions about Iran and Islam
March 4, 2016 at 7:22 pm
(This post was last modified: March 4, 2016 at 7:38 pm by ReptilianPeon.)
The Sunni and Shia Hadith were finalized several hundred years after Muhammad So, by your standards, there were very few "real" Muhammadans (Ibadis are older than both Sunni and Shia) for several hundred years after. But that's besides the point.
Many people from the Ummah freely admit that the Hadith are full of bovine excrement. The Quran does not tell people to consult Hadith because they are a later invention by fallible humans. Since there is no objective way of determining who is real and who isn't I personally think anyone who says they are "real" is real. Why are you defining someone else's religion for them?
It's like saying these people are normal because X. What is normal? There are loads of parameters to consider. Someone else will come along and say X does not make these people normal.
You put a Wahaabi/Salafi in a room with a Twelver and they will do so much crazy stuff it's unbelievable. Sunnis don't think Shias and the real deal. And vice versa. So, like I said, who is "real" depends on who you ask. So yeah, saying who is real and who isn't is like trying to define who is normal.
Taliban, as it happens, have a quite low opinion of al-Saud's Henchmen In Iraq And Syria (DAESH). The Taliban consider them "a local gang". Which is think is meant to be insulting. People die every single day because they can't agree on who is "real" and who isn't. Al-Saud's Henchman have been caught saying in some of their videos that Shia are worse than the Kuffar.
And then you find out King Faisal of Saudi was killed because the Wahaabis didn't like that he wanted to bring television to Saudi. Ironic, and it proves my point. Religionists can't agree on anything.
Many people from the Ummah freely admit that the Hadith are full of bovine excrement. The Quran does not tell people to consult Hadith because they are a later invention by fallible humans. Since there is no objective way of determining who is real and who isn't I personally think anyone who says they are "real" is real. Why are you defining someone else's religion for them?
It's like saying these people are normal because X. What is normal? There are loads of parameters to consider. Someone else will come along and say X does not make these people normal.
You put a Wahaabi/Salafi in a room with a Twelver and they will do so much crazy stuff it's unbelievable. Sunnis don't think Shias and the real deal. And vice versa. So, like I said, who is "real" depends on who you ask. So yeah, saying who is real and who isn't is like trying to define who is normal.
Taliban, as it happens, have a quite low opinion of al-Saud's Henchmen In Iraq And Syria (DAESH). The Taliban consider them "a local gang". Which is think is meant to be insulting. People die every single day because they can't agree on who is "real" and who isn't. Al-Saud's Henchman have been caught saying in some of their videos that Shia are worse than the Kuffar.
And then you find out King Faisal of Saudi was killed because the Wahaabis didn't like that he wanted to bring television to Saudi. Ironic, and it proves my point. Religionists can't agree on anything.
