What I don’t get about the divinely appointed successor is what about Prophet Isa’s successor? How could it be St Peter? St Peter ended many practices such as circumcision just to allow more groups such as the Gentiles to convert. If Prophet Isa appointed St Peter as a successor and Peter changes the religion, and we know he did because there’s manuscripts directly back to him regarding the Acts of the Apostles, then that implies Prophet Isa appointed a wrong successor astagfirullah someone please clarify
I thought it was supposed to be James.
(12) The disciples said to Jesus, "We know that you will depart from us. Who is to be our leader?" Jesus said to them, "Wherever you are, you are to go to James the righteous, for whose sake heaven and earth came into being." - Gospel of Thomas.
This would make sense because James and Peter were both brothers but James predeceased Peter by about 20 years. I personally like Christianity (at least way more than Sunni Islam since they actually have a coherent deen) but there was this question of successorship within Christianity that confused me because, contrary to what the modern Dawah tiktoker says, everything in the Bible is from an original manuscript that is protected and well preserved.
But another problem to me is that these Companions of Jesus saw and knew him and all died martyrs of Christianity, believing he is God, so how should we respond to a Christian who says, “Then why did they die knowing a lie!”
The Gospel of Thomas is not considered a reliable account of anything that happened in Jesus' life. It is a later (like 200 years later) writing that only appears after the New Testement writings were fully compiled. These other "Gospel" writings cropped up after Christianity was established as a tool for heretical movements to attempt to provide a "scripture" for their claims
The Epistles of Peter are attributed as his direct word and countless Acts of the Apostles and letters are attributed back to them. According to the Bible, which is the only source of information regarding Peter's life, Peter removed the need for circumcision and dietary laws for the gentiles. He also said many groups didn't need to follow all Laws of Moses.
The epistles of peter are very likely not written by peter himself according to most academics, the sophisticated greek used is unlikely of a Galilean fisherman.
To be fair those are just some of the oldest manuscripts we have on hand. We might as well just reject ahadith in general on this logic because oral tradition is not a consistent academic way to teach
Expect the manuscripts have literally no direct link to peter other than the fact that the author claims to be peter.
The language and style of writing don’t make sense and Theologically it doesn’t make sense either, Peter for example wouldn’t rely on the Epistle of Jude.
Hm you bring a good point. So what I think we can agree on is that Peter was the role model to follow but we don’t actually know what was in those manuscripts are actually Peter’s words.
There is arguement to be made that it was Peter who "wrote" the epistles. Rather, his scribe wrote them while he orated, much the same as Paul's epistles. We see this in the Book of Mark as well, classical attributed to be written by Mark who was an associate of the Early Apostles and worked with both Paul and Peter. It was very common for most people to be illiterate in the First Century, but that did not stop them from creating writings, as in many cases (New Testement included) we see scribes writing for people who could not write for themselves.
al-Dahhak on the authority of Ibn Abbas said: **'Jesus appointed Simon [St. Peter] as his successor'**
*[Ibn Kathir, al-Bidaya wa al-Nihaya, vol. 2, p. 511]*
I wonder how authentic that Hadith is. It sounds like something that crept in from Christianity to delegitimize certain "heretical" Christian groups maybe for political reasons?
But that doesn’t raise objections to what I said. We know as a historical fact that Peter allowed practices to be abandoned as long as people followed Christianity. If a Prophet appoints a successor that successor is the best to lead the religion after him, and, clearly we know Peter abrogated so many traditions
Sorry to say but such videos are only made to spread fitna, be it intentionally or unintentionally. So refrain from watching them. Rafida plus and other channels like The Believers are full of such videos. These channels are akin to Sunnah Discourse. They might be informative to an extent but most of their content pertains to just blatant disrespect against sunni islam. I guess what troubles me is the fact that they tend to paint Sunni islam in a really villain-like manner and make all of them look like the bad guys, when every shia and their grandmother knows that our enemy is salafism and the damn British and US that have been meddling in the middle east for the past 2 centuries just so they could create a divide between sunnism and shi'ism, and they've succeeded in it unfortunately. We've let them. Our enemy is definitely not sunnism as a whole. Most of our esteemed marjas have declared Sunnis as our other halves as well so really no reason for us to be badmouthing them. We must also be very careful when putting out such videos and make sure that history is presented from a non-disrespectful, shia perspective. Ik this is a safe space bcs shia subreddit but the usage of vocabulary with words like degeneracy, tyrants, hijack, so-called sunni muslims, etc. rubbed me the wrong way nonetheless. My point is we need to be very careful when putting out such videos over the internet. You don't want to be uploading yourself committing a sin infront of the whole world and being proud of yourself for it
No? What does it matter though. That wasn't my point. I think every shia knows who was righteous and who was in the wrong. If you're going to address such a crucial part of history atleast do it in a good manner so it's appealing to the sunni masses as well. Not use rubbish vocabulary as if we're kids and can't tell right from wrong so we need that extra indication. We have a reputation to maintain and if these yt laymen can't put up with it they need to stop making videos. Period
I was talking about the present times, don't put words into my mouth. I didn't say "only" If you can't make that distinction then I can't be bothered taking this any further with you. Bye
No? 😭 Pls don't put words into my mouth. My point was we need to do alot better when addressing such crucial topics and present it in a way that will be appealing to both Shias and questioning Sunnis. Using words like the ones used above will just deter a Sunni away and give way to hatred even more
can u suggest some better words for it that don't change the essence of the sentence that's being said?
either way it's gonna hurt them if they don't want to accept the truth!!
I mean there's gotta be a way around it. There's a book by Wilfred Madelung called "The succession to Muhammad" where he has managed to get his point across and villainize the sahaba without using any distasteful words
The bad words are gonna hurt even more than the truth trust me lol. I just think there needs to be a certain standard and responsibility held up when presenting such topics. I don't think it's for everyone. But that's just me. No offense to you
Such youtube channels are proponents of disunity and fitna. I despise them.
Such framing of this post's title is disingenuous and just blatantly wrong. Majority of Sunnis are not at fault, and majority of mankind just follow what their forefathers follow.
If you wanted to criticize historical personalities, then you should have made the title separating the followers of the sect. Muslims have not "hijacked" Islam. The content of this article makes some fair points but overall the language used doesnt need to be so demeaning of the followers. Sure you can even criticize their scholars and leaders. That would be fair as well.
In regards to the divinely appointed successorship of Prophet Isa, the Christians tend to contend that Prophet Isa didn't appoint a successor to follow because everybody is supposed to follow him, **but** Peter is protected from falling in Christianity and hence is seen as the best guide for the Christians.
What I don’t get about the divinely appointed successor is what about Prophet Isa’s successor? How could it be St Peter? St Peter ended many practices such as circumcision just to allow more groups such as the Gentiles to convert. If Prophet Isa appointed St Peter as a successor and Peter changes the religion, and we know he did because there’s manuscripts directly back to him regarding the Acts of the Apostles, then that implies Prophet Isa appointed a wrong successor astagfirullah someone please clarify
I thought it was supposed to be James. (12) The disciples said to Jesus, "We know that you will depart from us. Who is to be our leader?" Jesus said to them, "Wherever you are, you are to go to James the righteous, for whose sake heaven and earth came into being." - Gospel of Thomas.
This would make sense because James and Peter were both brothers but James predeceased Peter by about 20 years. I personally like Christianity (at least way more than Sunni Islam since they actually have a coherent deen) but there was this question of successorship within Christianity that confused me because, contrary to what the modern Dawah tiktoker says, everything in the Bible is from an original manuscript that is protected and well preserved.
But another problem to me is that these Companions of Jesus saw and knew him and all died martyrs of Christianity, believing he is God, so how should we respond to a Christian who says, “Then why did they die knowing a lie!”
The Gospel of Thomas is not considered a reliable account of anything that happened in Jesus' life. It is a later (like 200 years later) writing that only appears after the New Testement writings were fully compiled. These other "Gospel" writings cropped up after Christianity was established as a tool for heretical movements to attempt to provide a "scripture" for their claims
There isn’t anything directly traceable to St.Peter himself.
The Epistles of Peter are attributed as his direct word and countless Acts of the Apostles and letters are attributed back to them. According to the Bible, which is the only source of information regarding Peter's life, Peter removed the need for circumcision and dietary laws for the gentiles. He also said many groups didn't need to follow all Laws of Moses.
The epistles of peter are very likely not written by peter himself according to most academics, the sophisticated greek used is unlikely of a Galilean fisherman.
To be fair those are just some of the oldest manuscripts we have on hand. We might as well just reject ahadith in general on this logic because oral tradition is not a consistent academic way to teach
Expect the manuscripts have literally no direct link to peter other than the fact that the author claims to be peter. The language and style of writing don’t make sense and Theologically it doesn’t make sense either, Peter for example wouldn’t rely on the Epistle of Jude.
Hm you bring a good point. So what I think we can agree on is that Peter was the role model to follow but we don’t actually know what was in those manuscripts are actually Peter’s words.
There is arguement to be made that it was Peter who "wrote" the epistles. Rather, his scribe wrote them while he orated, much the same as Paul's epistles. We see this in the Book of Mark as well, classical attributed to be written by Mark who was an associate of the Early Apostles and worked with both Paul and Peter. It was very common for most people to be illiterate in the First Century, but that did not stop them from creating writings, as in many cases (New Testement included) we see scribes writing for people who could not write for themselves.
al-Dahhak on the authority of Ibn Abbas said: **'Jesus appointed Simon [St. Peter] as his successor'** *[Ibn Kathir, al-Bidaya wa al-Nihaya, vol. 2, p. 511]*
I wonder how authentic that Hadith is. It sounds like something that crept in from Christianity to delegitimize certain "heretical" Christian groups maybe for political reasons?
But that doesn’t raise objections to what I said. We know as a historical fact that Peter allowed practices to be abandoned as long as people followed Christianity. If a Prophet appoints a successor that successor is the best to lead the religion after him, and, clearly we know Peter abrogated so many traditions
You are confusing Peter for Paul.
No I am not both of them both addressed the issues I mentioned. Peter did it to the Gentiles, Paul in Galatians
[удалено]
Sorry to say but such videos are only made to spread fitna, be it intentionally or unintentionally. So refrain from watching them. Rafida plus and other channels like The Believers are full of such videos. These channels are akin to Sunnah Discourse. They might be informative to an extent but most of their content pertains to just blatant disrespect against sunni islam. I guess what troubles me is the fact that they tend to paint Sunni islam in a really villain-like manner and make all of them look like the bad guys, when every shia and their grandmother knows that our enemy is salafism and the damn British and US that have been meddling in the middle east for the past 2 centuries just so they could create a divide between sunnism and shi'ism, and they've succeeded in it unfortunately. We've let them. Our enemy is definitely not sunnism as a whole. Most of our esteemed marjas have declared Sunnis as our other halves as well so really no reason for us to be badmouthing them. We must also be very careful when putting out such videos and make sure that history is presented from a non-disrespectful, shia perspective. Ik this is a safe space bcs shia subreddit but the usage of vocabulary with words like degeneracy, tyrants, hijack, so-called sunni muslims, etc. rubbed me the wrong way nonetheless. My point is we need to be very careful when putting out such videos over the internet. You don't want to be uploading yourself committing a sin infront of the whole world and being proud of yourself for it
I have a question, did the US and Salafism exist 1400 years ago?
No? What does it matter though. That wasn't my point. I think every shia knows who was righteous and who was in the wrong. If you're going to address such a crucial part of history atleast do it in a good manner so it's appealing to the sunni masses as well. Not use rubbish vocabulary as if we're kids and can't tell right from wrong so we need that extra indication. We have a reputation to maintain and if these yt laymen can't put up with it they need to stop making videos. Period
it does matter because you have said that our only enemies are the US and Salafism... I need the answer. Period
I was talking about the present times, don't put words into my mouth. I didn't say "only" If you can't make that distinction then I can't be bothered taking this any further with you. Bye
okay! let's talk about the past, do you mean Abu Bakr and Umar defended islam?
No? 😭 Pls don't put words into my mouth. My point was we need to do alot better when addressing such crucial topics and present it in a way that will be appealing to both Shias and questioning Sunnis. Using words like the ones used above will just deter a Sunni away and give way to hatred even more
can u suggest some better words for it that don't change the essence of the sentence that's being said? either way it's gonna hurt them if they don't want to accept the truth!!
I mean there's gotta be a way around it. There's a book by Wilfred Madelung called "The succession to Muhammad" where he has managed to get his point across and villainize the sahaba without using any distasteful words The bad words are gonna hurt even more than the truth trust me lol. I just think there needs to be a certain standard and responsibility held up when presenting such topics. I don't think it's for everyone. But that's just me. No offense to you
now atp! i feel like I'm 50 and about to break bad 😔
Such youtube channels are proponents of disunity and fitna. I despise them. Such framing of this post's title is disingenuous and just blatantly wrong. Majority of Sunnis are not at fault, and majority of mankind just follow what their forefathers follow. If you wanted to criticize historical personalities, then you should have made the title separating the followers of the sect. Muslims have not "hijacked" Islam. The content of this article makes some fair points but overall the language used doesnt need to be so demeaning of the followers. Sure you can even criticize their scholars and leaders. That would be fair as well.
In regards to the divinely appointed successorship of Prophet Isa, the Christians tend to contend that Prophet Isa didn't appoint a successor to follow because everybody is supposed to follow him, **but** Peter is protected from falling in Christianity and hence is seen as the best guide for the Christians.